If you are using different axioms to come to different conclusions, evidently one person (or potentially both) must be incorrect in making those assumptions. Again, if that is the case, we should aim to explore those and see why there is that difference, and correct ourselves.
When I say 'arguing the wrong question', what I mean is that, during discussion, someone is arguing a different point. For example, if I say 'Is it wrong to kill people.' and someone responds that it is because the Bible says it is, then that would be a flawed argument, as they would be arguing 'Is it wrong for a christian to kill someone.' (or, from a christian's perspective). It's the wrong question, because it's a different question - my apologies for being unclear there. I did not mean that the question was somehow not worth answering - that indeed, would be wrong.
OK, I was wrong to try to give the reasons for differences of opinion - I was cluttering my main argument anyway. My point here is that convincing to yourself should be the same as convincing to others - otherwise, why are you believing it?
Once again, lacking logic is not something one would usually blame Descartes, Pascal, Aquinas, Lewis, Kierkegaard, etc of. The first two were mathematical thinkers in their own right, Im sure they are well acquainted with logical thinking and fallacies. They may have made errors in their thought, there is no doubt of that, but their arguments are nevertheless based on logic.
It is not that I am saying they are impossible of logical thought - I'm saying that the logic that someone uses to give reason for beleiving in God is inevitably flawed. I have never heard an argument for it that isn't.
That is a misconception, and is not what his wager states. You would have to read the full wager, which is longer (several pages, I believe), but to summarize quickly he is saying that it is illogical not to give more weight to the issue of God's existence. His reasoning isnt quite that "you should believe just in case". I would recommend you read it for yourself.
And if you read his other Pensees, you see a man who not only has a firm grasp on logic, but on the sad state of humanity (for example, his Pensee talking about how "it is right that I kill you because you came from that side of the river, rather than mine; if you had come from my side, it would have been a terrible crime"; or his Pensee showing how most of our lives are spent running away from the terrible state of boredom, from the richest of us to the poorest-- how THAT is the prime motivator in our lives).
In which case, their is an easier proof that Pascal's wager is incorrect. One can simply invent a new god, which - as there is no proof for a Christian God's existance - is just as likely to exist, and say that the reward for beleiving in that one would be greater (I get to do extra stuff I want in heaven, I'll be guarenteed riches in life, whatever). Either way, the logical choice, according to his wager, is to follow this new religion.
Which would be an odd claim by Pascal, as the texts he claimed to believe affirm that there is a downside if it is false: "If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men." (1 Corinthians 15:19) He was saying that there is no downside to considering its claims, IIRC.
In which case, my original argument stands and Pascal's wager is false, you would not sacrifice the downsides for the miniscule chance that a God does exist.
Lewis had an excellent remark on this in his book "miracles". Simply put, there is the historical evidence, which in all cases (religious and secular) is not "reproduceable", but can only be evaluated on the strength of its evidence. I would claim that there is historical evidence for miracles occuring. But if you do not believe in miracles, then no matter what evidence I would show you, you would simply claim either an alternative (even if less likely), or that the evidence I gave is unreliable because miracles are impossible and thus my source is lying.
You can see this principle in action with the dating of certain books of the bible which make predictive prophesy: there may be evidence that they were written before the event they predict, but very very often you will see them labeled as having been written after the fact, because, as we know, "theres no such thing as predictive prophesy and the author could not have known about an event before it occurred." Look in the wikipedia article on Habakkuk: the implication is that the events predicted must have happened already when the book was written, and that Habakkuk must himself have been aware of the Babylonians cruelty, since obviously the Lord could not have made these statements. There are other examples, such as the dating of Israel's campaign into Canaan, which is again based on the presumption that the Bible's accounts of miracles must not have been accurate simply because miracles are impossible.
My problem with that is that it's simply not the case. If you want to test anything, you do a placebo controlled study, and check for statistical correlation which proves signficant. What you are clearly doing is looking for a result you want, and seeing it. The reason it's not good enough evidence for anyone else is that it shouldn't be enough for you. Just like seeing a mirage doesn't mean it's real, you have to be able to admit that your instinctive thought it not always right - patterns you see are not always there.
I believe it because it works - when I observe something, test it, and apply logic, it generally repeats that outcome in future (and if it doesn't, there is always a reason) - yes, when you boil it down, it comes back to 'I think therefore I am' - and that's something that I can't forsee changing any time soon. I have to beleive in something - but again, I'm doing it because there is enough proof and it seems a logical observation.
You say that philosiphers beleiving in god proves that a lack of logic isn't required - that's simply not true. Just because a person is smart, says great things, is great in any regard, does not mean that they are perfect, or always think logically. I can think of someone as great, and still think they were wrong. Someone smart beleiving something does not make it true. In fact, Pascal is a terrible example - he was very clearly logically flawed - Pascal's Wager is an argument for religion - that beleiving in a religion is worth it 'just in case' - this argument is terrible. Mainly, it implies there are no downsides at all to living in a religious way. Also, if someone tells me that the flying spaghetti monster will take me to a place better than heaven after dying, then - by his argument - I should beleive in the flying sphagetti monster.
Again - because some people accept things without investigating for themselves, doesn't mean it's correct to do so. Now clearly, you are right - and we can't investigate everything we learn. We have to take some things on trust of others - however, your argument falls down with regards to comparing the scientific community to the relgious community, compare:
A person hears that water boils at 100 degrees c. He beleives this because it's a reproducable fact - scientists proposed the theory, tested it, and found it to be true. Other scientists also found it to be true when they tested it. It's a reproducable, observable event. If the person wanted to, they could repeat the experiment.
A person hears god exists. He beleives this because... why? His parents told him it was true? They are humans and fallable. His priests told him it was true? Again, same argument. The bible tells him it's true? It's a book, it could easily be wrong, as it's written by humans, who could have been wrong, etc... etc... There is no observable event or repeatable experiment to show a God is likely - it's just a well known story without any backing.
We beleive scientists because there is a system - the scientific method defines science as being logical, repeatable and observable. When something is published in a journal, it's then tested by other scientists and confirmed. Religion doesn't have this, so it's illogical to trust that chain.
I do believe that those that have faith in a relgion are illogical. I beleive this because no one has ever been able to give me a good argument as to why it is the case. I fully admit I could be wrong, but if I am, show me where my logic is flawed. The possibility that I could be wrong does not mean I shouldn't state my current stance - not only do I want to show my logic to others and hopefully get them to question their flawed logic, but also, if I state my logic and put it out there, if it is flawed, someone can point that out and correct my flawed logic (should it exist) thus, I come closer to the truth. That is the aim of logical thought, but either way, stating what you beleive should never mean you beleive you could not be wrong - not if you are a logical person.
Unfortunately, your argument isn't valid - you say you beleive in a relgion because it made your life better? What you mean here is that you took the teachings of the religion, followed them, and then had a positive result - fair enough. All you have done there is prove that the teachings are good ideas (in your case). That doesn't mean that the religion is valid.
If someone came up to the door and told me that there was a flying spaghetti monster that ruled the world, and I should never eat spaghetti ever again because it's offensive to it, by your logic, if I stop eating spaghetti and it makes my life better (say I'm gluten intolerant or something) - it proves that the flying spaghetti monster exists.
When you say things like 'it may not be convincing to others' - you are admitting that your logic is flawed. What you should do there is re-evaluate your position, look at what you beleive, ask yourself why you beleive it, and whether you were wrong. Logic isn't just about proving yourself right, it's about correcting yourself or others by trying to understand why there is a difference in opinion - and there are only three reasons for a difference of opinion: That someone is arguing the wrong question, That at least one person is wrong, or that it is a matter of personal taste. The argument you gave is flawed - if you want to give another argument now, or tell me why my argument is flawed, feel free - but if there comes a time when all your arguments are gone, look at what you beleive and ask yourself, why?
Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf.
on
The Science of Santa
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
To be fair to them, I agree with Penn Jillette that if someone does believe in a religion, it's equally insane not to expect them to be verbal about it. The example he gives is that if I'm stood in front of you on train tracks, and you hear a train coming - but I tell you that the train doesn't exist, you are still going to push me off the tracks (presuming that you are not too scared of getting sued, enjoy seeing people die, etc...). If someone believes I am going to burn in hell for eternity because I don't beleive in God, then I can understand them trying to change my viewpoint.
Love is an emotion - it's an abstract label we have applied to someone wanting another person's company and caring about them - that's clearly observable in society, and in a product of evolution and natural selection - animals that look after their children do better than those that don't, as they avoid the young animals being killed off. It's observable.
As to the rest of what you say, it didn't really make too much sense, as far as I can gather you are saying that caring about another person is proof of a god. How is that a logical conclusion? Again, caring for others is a product of society, which is the product of evolution. Animals that have social interaction fare better than those that don't as they help each other out, increasing likelyhood of survival as a species.
The idea that one can only be a morally good person with the guidance of a higher power is a joke. I'm perfectly capable of being moralistic without needing to believe that God made it so, or I'll go to hell if I don't act in a 'good' way.
The age old 'prove that god exists' 'well, prove that he doesn't' mantra is inherantly flawed. I don't require proof that God exists, I require enough reasoned evidence that it seems likely - just like anything else. Just because there is some vague chance of something being the case, doesn't mean you beleive it. All I do is treat religion just like anything else - and it fails at that hurdle.
Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf.
on
The Science of Santa
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I love the vague terminology - God touched you? Explain exactly what that means. I'll believe something to do with gods the same way I'll believe anything else - give me enough proof to make it the most likely explanation. I'm not saying there is no posibility of a God, I'm saying that beleiving in one is like believing there is an elephant in my bathtub - It's highly unlikely, and if someone told me it was true, I wouldn't take them at their word.
You say there is no proof you can show me, then why should you expect me to believe it? I'm sure you'd think anyone getting an email from nigerian royalty promising lots of money and beleiving it was stupid, but an old book and promising eternal life? It's different how?
I'm open to the idea - If I'm wrong, you should be able to tell me why I'm wrong, and I'll take that on board. If you expect me to treat it differently because it's religion, or suspend logic for no reason, then no. Logic applies universally, you can't just choose where to apply it or not.
Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf.
on
The Science of Santa
·
· Score: 0, Troll
Yeah, beleiving in something with no proof, except maybe that someone older than you said it was true. Who'd do something stupid like that. Oh, wait, every religious person in the world.
If you want to be picky, some actually believe there is proof - they are the ones who suck at evaluating evidence.
It's not real. War films can contain horrible war crimes, as can books - it makes sense because it's not real and sometimes you need those things to produce a good story or retell an event (not that you need to have a reason to do something horrible to stuff that doesn't exist). Games are just another medium, why are people being so stupid?
Forks that do nothing useful should be shunned because they are useless. The point is that the actual privacy modifications are pointless - you could distribute a config file to do the same thing.
Reality: Only a small number of users use NoScript et al. This is a problem for those that don't, and even if you do, what about when the site you want someone from requires JS?
I don't see that. A man slapping a child on the bum with his hand isn't going to injure a child unless they are trying to do so. You shouldn't be hitting them, just a tap to give them a moment of shock. If you truly can't control yourself to that point, call social services and have your child taken off you.
Of course my opinions are nothing more than opinions. I'm posting a comment in a discussion, I thought that would be clear.
That said, that's how I see it. If you think I'm wrong, feel free to make counter-arguments and change my mind - I could well be wrong, but at the moment, that's how I see it, and I can't think of any better argument.
You don't beat a child to make a moral point. You can, and should, smack a child to teach them when they can't understand - for example, if a young child is about to touch a hot oven, you smack them to shock them and reinforce the point, something you can't do with words when they are young. But that is about shock, communicating and not real harm. You should never be beating a child with an object, and never repeatedly. It should never be more than enough to cause a bit of mild pain and shock to grab attention and make them realise. By the time they are 16, you should be able to talk with your child a reason with them. If you can't, consider the idea you might be wrong. Sure, sometimes kids won't listen, but beating them is never an answer.
Kid, adult - they are people. Beating them is wrong.
Yeah, because blindly following what your parents taught you is always a good course of action. Anyone with any self respect starts to question their viewpoints when they can, and finds their own reasons for them.
Society shouldn't decide what anyone can or can not do besides protecting people's freedoms.
Because if the government decides what is 'politically irrelevant' then they can use that to pick and choose what they want to allow to be free. If I think that person X is a dick, I should be allowed to say that, regardless of them being alive or dead, or what the general opinion of that person is. Why? Because people shouldn't have any right to not be offended. People should have a right to do whatever they want. The only time we should restrict what people can do is when it causes other's to loose their freedoms.
Dead bodies are dead bodies. Sure, those people may have done stuff that was good of bad during their life, but why should we respect them? I'll respect the person that lived, if they deserve it, but no more. If someone dies, why should they suddenly gain respect?
It's sure as hell isn't the government's place to enforce that anyone respect anything.
Just as a note, I am English, and have lived here all my life, so this is an issue that affects me.
I think my real issue here is if you say that in this case, what he was saying was illegal because it hurt the parents, what is to stop me from going out and stopping someone talking about issue X because I find issue X offensive. What you did was swap out the word 'offend' with 'hurt' - the reality is he was trying to offend the parents. You do not have a right to not be offended, and people should be able to offend you. Yes, it's not nice and society should look down on this guy - but the law shouldn't be involved.
The issue here is that it could just be his opinion that this girl is a horrible person. He has a right to that opinion. Sure, her parents might find that really offensive, but that doesn't give them the right to stop him expressing that opinion.
My main issue here is your distinction between offend and hurt - here the two are one and the same.
This is why freedom of speech - in it's full form - is important, because anything less than all expression being protected is just not strong enough a protection.
I completely disagree. The only thing I can see here that could be a reason is him using the girl's face without her permission, which could be grounds for something, but not this. Why should people have a right not to be offended? They don't have to pay attention to the stuff this guy posts - that's their choice. This is bad because the government has stepped in and stopped this guy speaking. Sure, for now it's some guy being a jackass, then it'll be some racists, then pirates, then just anyone who doesn't support the government's stance on anything. Yes, I'm talking about a slippery slope, and just because it's possible doesn't mean someone will do it, but my point is not that because they have jailed this asshole they will later go on to jail the rest, I'm saying, because it's possible they can jail this asshole, it's possible they can jail the rest, and that is wrong.
The government shouldn't be able to stop people talking about anything, because potentially the thing they are talking about could be something that the people want made legal. By stopping them talking about it, you make it impossible to vote for that idea, destroying the basis of democracy. Freedom of speech is important because without it you can't have democracy. You just have a government that lets you vote so long as you are voting for stuff they don't really hate. It's not the same thing. True democracy means allowing the Nazi party, allowing the paedophile party, and letting them talk about it all day long. It also includes letting this guy be an asshole, as long as he doesn't infringe on the other people's freedoms (punching them, for example, would be injuring them, and that would be wrong under the law).
Yes. The government is a tool for the people - that's the point of a democracy. That said, we have to constantly watch it to ensure it stays that way, as we are giving people the power to tell people what to do, and that power can be abused. One can not presume the government will do the right thing, which is why freedom of speech is important.
I would never suggest that we should just accept something without monitoring it. Things can change, we can learn new things.
This said - the only sane way to go through life is acting based on the most likely thing to happen. Sure, in 5 seconds, gravity could dissapear completely - but you don't live as though that's the case - you live with the most likely case in mind.
You say the vaccinations are not good? Why? They are tested, and lots of people have been given them. With the number of people that have been given them, if there was some link, then it would have shown itself by now, and would be testable and repeatable. Just because medical science hasn't found a link doesn't mean one doesn't exist - you are completely right. However, to act as though there is one when there hasn't been one proven is insane. The reality is that vaccines are tested and provable to protect you from a number of bad diseases - even something like chicken pox can do serious damage in the right circumstance, and it's better to never have it. This is shown in repeatable experiments. The supposed negative effects of those vaccines has never been shown in any repeatable experiment, in fact, quite the opposite. They have good effects, and no shown bad effects, the choice is simple.
To argue you should not take a vaccine because of a potential risk is just flat out illogical. If makes no more sense than working on the assumption there is an elephant in your bathtub - it's technically possible, but you'd never do things on the basis it was true without reason to do so. The only difference is there hasn't been some media hysteria about the elephant in your bathtub that doesn't exist - instead it's about the risks of vaccines - risks that do not exist.
This is a constant issue and reinforces my opinion that children should be taught basic logic in schools - people make so many fallacies while discussing an issue, and don't think rationally about issues.
What you have there is a fallacy of composition, just because, by themselves, the things that make up the vaccine are bad, the vaccine itself is bad.
I'll make an example. I am not a fan of drinking rum neat - I'm also not someone who enjoys cola much, and yet make me a rum and cola and I can enjoy it. You can not take an item and presume it is simply the sum of it's parts directly.
I understand how vaccinations work. Why is mercury there? Well, a quick bit of research shows it actually isn't - since 2001 it's been slowly taken out of vaccines and replaced with alternatives. The answer as to why it was there - it was there in very small amounts as a preservative. It's commonplace to see preservatives (that in larger amounts, alone, would be harmful) in your food, so why is it surprising in a vaccine? They have to be stored, and it was tested and showed no adverse effects.
The answer here is perspective - mercury is in things like tuna that people eat - as long as you don't eat only tuna, it's not a problem. Getting a few vaccines that contain micrograms of a mercury-containing substance is not an issue. To be sensationalist and say things like 'near lethal' is just flat out wrong.
What you need to do is go and look beyond the sources you have done - look at the studies, the facts, and the figures - and don't get caught up in the sensationalist stuff - yes, vaccines don't sound very good when you hear about them, but when you understand why they have these things in, and how they work, it's not something to be scared about. The diseases they protect you from, on the other hand, those are.
Slashdot Mirror
If you are using different axioms to come to different conclusions, evidently one person (or potentially both) must be incorrect in making those assumptions. Again, if that is the case, we should aim to explore those and see why there is that difference, and correct ourselves.
When I say 'arguing the wrong question', what I mean is that, during discussion, someone is arguing a different point. For example, if I say 'Is it wrong to kill people.' and someone responds that it is because the Bible says it is, then that would be a flawed argument, as they would be arguing 'Is it wrong for a christian to kill someone.' (or, from a christian's perspective). It's the wrong question, because it's a different question - my apologies for being unclear there. I did not mean that the question was somehow not worth answering - that indeed, would be wrong.
OK, I was wrong to try to give the reasons for differences of opinion - I was cluttering my main argument anyway. My point here is that convincing to yourself should be the same as convincing to others - otherwise, why are you believing it?
Once again, lacking logic is not something one would usually blame Descartes, Pascal, Aquinas, Lewis, Kierkegaard, etc of. The first two were mathematical thinkers in their own right, Im sure they are well acquainted with logical thinking and fallacies. They may have made errors in their thought, there is no doubt of that, but their arguments are nevertheless based on logic.
It is not that I am saying they are impossible of logical thought - I'm saying that the logic that someone uses to give reason for beleiving in God is inevitably flawed. I have never heard an argument for it that isn't.
That is a misconception, and is not what his wager states. You would have to read the full wager, which is longer (several pages, I believe), but to summarize quickly he is saying that it is illogical not to give more weight to the issue of God's existence. His reasoning isnt quite that "you should believe just in case". I would recommend you read it for yourself.
And if you read his other Pensees, you see a man who not only has a firm grasp on logic, but on the sad state of humanity (for example, his Pensee talking about how "it is right that I kill you because you came from that side of the river, rather than mine; if you had come from my side, it would have been a terrible crime"; or his Pensee showing how most of our lives are spent running away from the terrible state of boredom, from the richest of us to the poorest-- how THAT is the prime motivator in our lives).
In which case, their is an easier proof that Pascal's wager is incorrect. One can simply invent a new god, which - as there is no proof for a Christian God's existance - is just as likely to exist, and say that the reward for beleiving in that one would be greater (I get to do extra stuff I want in heaven, I'll be guarenteed riches in life, whatever). Either way, the logical choice, according to his wager, is to follow this new religion.
Which would be an odd claim by Pascal, as the texts he claimed to believe affirm that there is a downside if it is false: "If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men." (1 Corinthians 15:19) He was saying that there is no downside to considering its claims, IIRC.
In which case, my original argument stands and Pascal's wager is false, you would not sacrifice the downsides for the miniscule chance that a God does exist.
Lewis had an excellent remark on this in his book "miracles". Simply put, there is the historical evidence, which in all cases (religious and secular) is not "reproduceable", but can only be evaluated on the strength of its evidence. I would claim that there is historical evidence for miracles occuring. But if you do not believe in miracles, then no matter what evidence I would show you, you would simply claim either an alternative (even if less likely), or that the evidence I gave is unreliable because miracles are impossible and thus my source is lying.
You can see this principle in action with the dating of certain books of the bible which make predictive prophesy: there may be evidence that they were written before the event they predict, but very very often you will see them labeled as having been written after the fact, because, as we know, "theres no such thing as predictive prophesy and the author could not have known about an event before it occurred." Look in the wikipedia article on Habakkuk: the implication is that the events predicted must have happened already when the book was written, and that Habakkuk must himself have been aware of the Babylonians cruelty, since obviously the Lord could not have made these statements. There are other examples, such as the dating of Israel's campaign into Canaan, which is again based on the presumption that the Bible's accounts of miracles must not have been accurate simply because miracles are impossible.
My problem with that is that it's simply not the case. If you want to test anything, you do a placebo controlled study, and check for statistical correlation which proves signficant. What you are clearly doing is looking for a result you want, and seeing it. The reason it's not good enough evidence for anyone else is that it shouldn't be enough for you. Just like seeing a mirage doesn't mean it's real, you have to be able to admit that your instinctive thought it not always right - patterns you see are not always there.
I believe it because it works - when I observe something, test it, and apply logic, it generally repeats that outcome in future (and if it doesn't, there is always a reason) - yes, when you boil it down, it comes back to 'I think therefore I am' - and that's something that I can't forsee changing any time soon. I have to beleive in something - but again, I'm doing it because there is enough proof and it seems a logical observation.
You say that philosiphers beleiving in god proves that a lack of logic isn't required - that's simply not true. Just because a person is smart, says great things, is great in any regard, does not mean that they are perfect, or always think logically. I can think of someone as great, and still think they were wrong. Someone smart beleiving something does not make it true. In fact, Pascal is a terrible example - he was very clearly logically flawed - Pascal's Wager is an argument for religion - that beleiving in a religion is worth it 'just in case' - this argument is terrible. Mainly, it implies there are no downsides at all to living in a religious way. Also, if someone tells me that the flying spaghetti monster will take me to a place better than heaven after dying, then - by his argument - I should beleive in the flying sphagetti monster.
Again - because some people accept things without investigating for themselves, doesn't mean it's correct to do so. Now clearly, you are right - and we can't investigate everything we learn. We have to take some things on trust of others - however, your argument falls down with regards to comparing the scientific community to the relgious community, compare:
A person hears that water boils at 100 degrees c. He beleives this because it's a reproducable fact - scientists proposed the theory, tested it, and found it to be true. Other scientists also found it to be true when they tested it. It's a reproducable, observable event. If the person wanted to, they could repeat the experiment.
A person hears god exists. He beleives this because... why? His parents told him it was true? They are humans and fallable. His priests told him it was true? Again, same argument. The bible tells him it's true? It's a book, it could easily be wrong, as it's written by humans, who could have been wrong, etc... etc... There is no observable event or repeatable experiment to show a God is likely - it's just a well known story without any backing.
We beleive scientists because there is a system - the scientific method defines science as being logical, repeatable and observable. When something is published in a journal, it's then tested by other scientists and confirmed. Religion doesn't have this, so it's illogical to trust that chain.
I do believe that those that have faith in a relgion are illogical. I beleive this because no one has ever been able to give me a good argument as to why it is the case. I fully admit I could be wrong, but if I am, show me where my logic is flawed. The possibility that I could be wrong does not mean I shouldn't state my current stance - not only do I want to show my logic to others and hopefully get them to question their flawed logic, but also, if I state my logic and put it out there, if it is flawed, someone can point that out and correct my flawed logic (should it exist) thus, I come closer to the truth. That is the aim of logical thought, but either way, stating what you beleive should never mean you beleive you could not be wrong - not if you are a logical person.
Unfortunately, your argument isn't valid - you say you beleive in a relgion because it made your life better? What you mean here is that you took the teachings of the religion, followed them, and then had a positive result - fair enough. All you have done there is prove that the teachings are good ideas (in your case). That doesn't mean that the religion is valid.
If someone came up to the door and told me that there was a flying spaghetti monster that ruled the world, and I should never eat spaghetti ever again because it's offensive to it, by your logic, if I stop eating spaghetti and it makes my life better (say I'm gluten intolerant or something) - it proves that the flying spaghetti monster exists.
When you say things like 'it may not be convincing to others' - you are admitting that your logic is flawed. What you should do there is re-evaluate your position, look at what you beleive, ask yourself why you beleive it, and whether you were wrong. Logic isn't just about proving yourself right, it's about correcting yourself or others by trying to understand why there is a difference in opinion - and there are only three reasons for a difference of opinion: That someone is arguing the wrong question, That at least one person is wrong, or that it is a matter of personal taste. The argument you gave is flawed - if you want to give another argument now, or tell me why my argument is flawed, feel free - but if there comes a time when all your arguments are gone, look at what you beleive and ask yourself, why?
To be fair to them, I agree with Penn Jillette that if someone does believe in a religion, it's equally insane not to expect them to be verbal about it. The example he gives is that if I'm stood in front of you on train tracks, and you hear a train coming - but I tell you that the train doesn't exist, you are still going to push me off the tracks (presuming that you are not too scared of getting sued, enjoy seeing people die, etc...). If someone believes I am going to burn in hell for eternity because I don't beleive in God, then I can understand them trying to change my viewpoint.
Doesn't stop them being illogical mind.
Love is an emotion - it's an abstract label we have applied to someone wanting another person's company and caring about them - that's clearly observable in society, and in a product of evolution and natural selection - animals that look after their children do better than those that don't, as they avoid the young animals being killed off. It's observable.
As to the rest of what you say, it didn't really make too much sense, as far as I can gather you are saying that caring about another person is proof of a god. How is that a logical conclusion? Again, caring for others is a product of society, which is the product of evolution. Animals that have social interaction fare better than those that don't as they help each other out, increasing likelyhood of survival as a species.
The idea that one can only be a morally good person with the guidance of a higher power is a joke. I'm perfectly capable of being moralistic without needing to believe that God made it so, or I'll go to hell if I don't act in a 'good' way.
The age old 'prove that god exists' 'well, prove that he doesn't' mantra is inherantly flawed. I don't require proof that God exists, I require enough reasoned evidence that it seems likely - just like anything else. Just because there is some vague chance of something being the case, doesn't mean you beleive it. All I do is treat religion just like anything else - and it fails at that hurdle.
I love the vague terminology - God touched you? Explain exactly what that means. I'll believe something to do with gods the same way I'll believe anything else - give me enough proof to make it the most likely explanation. I'm not saying there is no posibility of a God, I'm saying that beleiving in one is like believing there is an elephant in my bathtub - It's highly unlikely, and if someone told me it was true, I wouldn't take them at their word.
You say there is no proof you can show me, then why should you expect me to believe it? I'm sure you'd think anyone getting an email from nigerian royalty promising lots of money and beleiving it was stupid, but an old book and promising eternal life? It's different how?
I'm open to the idea - If I'm wrong, you should be able to tell me why I'm wrong, and I'll take that on board. If you expect me to treat it differently because it's religion, or suspend logic for no reason, then no. Logic applies universally, you can't just choose where to apply it or not.
Yeah, beleiving in something with no proof, except maybe that someone older than you said it was true. Who'd do something stupid like that. Oh, wait, every religious person in the world.
If you want to be picky, some actually believe there is proof - they are the ones who suck at evaluating evidence.
It's not real. War films can contain horrible war crimes, as can books - it makes sense because it's not real and sometimes you need those things to produce a good story or retell an event (not that you need to have a reason to do something horrible to stuff that doesn't exist). Games are just another medium, why are people being so stupid?
Forks that do nothing useful should be shunned because they are useless. The point is that the actual privacy modifications are pointless - you could distribute a config file to do the same thing.
Are you suggesting that your bank, VOIP provider, and youtube have no interest in tracking you?
Ha ha ha oh wow.
Reality: Only a small number of users use NoScript et al. This is a problem for those that don't, and even if you do, what about when the site you want someone from requires JS?
I don't see that. A man slapping a child on the bum with his hand isn't going to injure a child unless they are trying to do so. You shouldn't be hitting them, just a tap to give them a moment of shock. If you truly can't control yourself to that point, call social services and have your child taken off you.
Of course my opinions are nothing more than opinions. I'm posting a comment in a discussion, I thought that would be clear. That said, that's how I see it. If you think I'm wrong, feel free to make counter-arguments and change my mind - I could well be wrong, but at the moment, that's how I see it, and I can't think of any better argument.
You don't beat a child to make a moral point. You can, and should, smack a child to teach them when they can't understand - for example, if a young child is about to touch a hot oven, you smack them to shock them and reinforce the point, something you can't do with words when they are young. But that is about shock, communicating and not real harm. You should never be beating a child with an object, and never repeatedly. It should never be more than enough to cause a bit of mild pain and shock to grab attention and make them realise. By the time they are 16, you should be able to talk with your child a reason with them. If you can't, consider the idea you might be wrong. Sure, sometimes kids won't listen, but beating them is never an answer. Kid, adult - they are people. Beating them is wrong.
Yeah, because blindly following what your parents taught you is always a good course of action. Anyone with any self respect starts to question their viewpoints when they can, and finds their own reasons for them.
Society shouldn't decide what anyone can or can not do besides protecting people's freedoms.
Because if the government decides what is 'politically irrelevant' then they can use that to pick and choose what they want to allow to be free. If I think that person X is a dick, I should be allowed to say that, regardless of them being alive or dead, or what the general opinion of that person is. Why? Because people shouldn't have any right to not be offended. People should have a right to do whatever they want. The only time we should restrict what people can do is when it causes other's to loose their freedoms.
Seriously? Why?
Dead bodies are dead bodies. Sure, those people may have done stuff that was good of bad during their life, but why should we respect them? I'll respect the person that lived, if they deserve it, but no more. If someone dies, why should they suddenly gain respect?
It's sure as hell isn't the government's place to enforce that anyone respect anything.
Thanks for the well formed counter.
Just as a note, I am English, and have lived here all my life, so this is an issue that affects me.
I think my real issue here is if you say that in this case, what he was saying was illegal because it hurt the parents, what is to stop me from going out and stopping someone talking about issue X because I find issue X offensive. What you did was swap out the word 'offend' with 'hurt' - the reality is he was trying to offend the parents. You do not have a right to not be offended, and people should be able to offend you. Yes, it's not nice and society should look down on this guy - but the law shouldn't be involved.
The issue here is that it could just be his opinion that this girl is a horrible person. He has a right to that opinion. Sure, her parents might find that really offensive, but that doesn't give them the right to stop him expressing that opinion.
My main issue here is your distinction between offend and hurt - here the two are one and the same.
This is why freedom of speech - in it's full form - is important, because anything less than all expression being protected is just not strong enough a protection.
I completely disagree. The only thing I can see here that could be a reason is him using the girl's face without her permission, which could be grounds for something, but not this. Why should people have a right not to be offended? They don't have to pay attention to the stuff this guy posts - that's their choice. This is bad because the government has stepped in and stopped this guy speaking. Sure, for now it's some guy being a jackass, then it'll be some racists, then pirates, then just anyone who doesn't support the government's stance on anything. Yes, I'm talking about a slippery slope, and just because it's possible doesn't mean someone will do it, but my point is not that because they have jailed this asshole they will later go on to jail the rest, I'm saying, because it's possible they can jail this asshole, it's possible they can jail the rest, and that is wrong.
The government shouldn't be able to stop people talking about anything, because potentially the thing they are talking about could be something that the people want made legal. By stopping them talking about it, you make it impossible to vote for that idea, destroying the basis of democracy. Freedom of speech is important because without it you can't have democracy. You just have a government that lets you vote so long as you are voting for stuff they don't really hate. It's not the same thing. True democracy means allowing the Nazi party, allowing the paedophile party, and letting them talk about it all day long. It also includes letting this guy be an asshole, as long as he doesn't infringe on the other people's freedoms (punching them, for example, would be injuring them, and that would be wrong under the law).
Yes. The government is a tool for the people - that's the point of a democracy. That said, we have to constantly watch it to ensure it stays that way, as we are giving people the power to tell people what to do, and that power can be abused. One can not presume the government will do the right thing, which is why freedom of speech is important.
Maybe it's just me, but does it seem like a bug tracker shouldn't require a book to use?
I've used JIRA, and I can't imagine this being anything other than stating the obvious.
I would never suggest that we should just accept something without monitoring it. Things can change, we can learn new things.
This said - the only sane way to go through life is acting based on the most likely thing to happen. Sure, in 5 seconds, gravity could dissapear completely - but you don't live as though that's the case - you live with the most likely case in mind.
You say the vaccinations are not good? Why? They are tested, and lots of people have been given them. With the number of people that have been given them, if there was some link, then it would have shown itself by now, and would be testable and repeatable. Just because medical science hasn't found a link doesn't mean one doesn't exist - you are completely right. However, to act as though there is one when there hasn't been one proven is insane. The reality is that vaccines are tested and provable to protect you from a number of bad diseases - even something like chicken pox can do serious damage in the right circumstance, and it's better to never have it. This is shown in repeatable experiments. The supposed negative effects of those vaccines has never been shown in any repeatable experiment, in fact, quite the opposite. They have good effects, and no shown bad effects, the choice is simple.
To argue you should not take a vaccine because of a potential risk is just flat out illogical. If makes no more sense than working on the assumption there is an elephant in your bathtub - it's technically possible, but you'd never do things on the basis it was true without reason to do so. The only difference is there hasn't been some media hysteria about the elephant in your bathtub that doesn't exist - instead it's about the risks of vaccines - risks that do not exist.
This is a constant issue and reinforces my opinion that children should be taught basic logic in schools - people make so many fallacies while discussing an issue, and don't think rationally about issues.
What you have there is a fallacy of composition, just because, by themselves, the things that make up the vaccine are bad, the vaccine itself is bad.
I'll make an example. I am not a fan of drinking rum neat - I'm also not someone who enjoys cola much, and yet make me a rum and cola and I can enjoy it. You can not take an item and presume it is simply the sum of it's parts directly.
I understand how vaccinations work. Why is mercury there? Well, a quick bit of research shows it actually isn't - since 2001 it's been slowly taken out of vaccines and replaced with alternatives. The answer as to why it was there - it was there in very small amounts as a preservative. It's commonplace to see preservatives (that in larger amounts, alone, would be harmful) in your food, so why is it surprising in a vaccine? They have to be stored, and it was tested and showed no adverse effects.
The answer here is perspective - mercury is in things like tuna that people eat - as long as you don't eat only tuna, it's not a problem. Getting a few vaccines that contain micrograms of a mercury-containing substance is not an issue. To be sensationalist and say things like 'near lethal' is just flat out wrong.
What you need to do is go and look beyond the sources you have done - look at the studies, the facts, and the figures - and don't get caught up in the sensationalist stuff - yes, vaccines don't sound very good when you hear about them, but when you understand why they have these things in, and how they work, it's not something to be scared about. The diseases they protect you from, on the other hand, those are.