john5746

Reality is shaped by the individual. All persons know that, I'd have thought.

 

Sorry, you aren't Neo and this isn't the Matrix. Sure, you do have a very limited ability to change your environment, but not the rules that govern it. You might not be social, you might be a sociopath and a psychopath, but most humans, as with many mammels are social.

 

I suggest you watch something like Naked and Afraid on Discovery Channel to get a small taste of how your life would be without society.

Do we have reason to suspect people don't "really believe?" Are we to not take them at their word when they say they do?

 

If they don't actually believe, but they continually claim that they do, doesn't that put them into the liar category I mentioned in the quote from me you shared?

I agreed with your position in regards to some educated people. I'll use myself, since I usually know what I was thinking. I never had any strong belief as in thinking I was personally saved by a deity. But, I considered myself a christian and would tell someone if asked, that Jesus had died for me, etc.

I guess you could say I was lying, but it had more nuance than that.

 

I wasn't thinking "feed this BS to numbnut so they will accept me." It was more like "Well, I really haven't thought about it, but I'm a good person and I believe in God so why wouldn't I go to heaven?". After finishing college, it turned into the first quote, until I finally did that line on an atheist and he grilled me on it. I confessed to him that I really hadn't thought about it much and that started my path towards atheism.

 

So, I still think ignorance is a big player in this. Sometimes willful ignorance, in that people just aren't really that interested in determining truth, unless arguing with someone. I see this with a relative in regards to evolution. She will not accept/admit that people are apes and has no interest in learning about it. Yet, she is interested in geneology and accepts DNA as evidence. I guess you could say she is broken in regards to Biology.

Mostly, though, I am suggesting that most people who say that they believe in god(s) are otherwise fully functional intelligent human beings who get along just fine as productive members of society. However, I am suggesting they are more than mistaken in context of this god topic, and concluding the existence of god(s) using broken logic, flawed rationality, and based on a double standard for evidence that they generally use no where else in their lives or for any other belief or conclusion they hold. I'm suggesting they are mostly deluded, and this is obvious when taking even a cursory view of the several definitions of that term I've shared. For that sub-population who cannot be accurately described as deluded, most are either lying or hallucinating.

I think I'm closer to Iggy's position on this. I think you are thinking mostly of the educated, moderate believers. I would say most of them don't really believe much - they just bow to social pressure. Just plain ignorance explains the fundamentalists. And this ignorance is displayed in other areas as well. Thinking the President is muslim, thinking Saddam was involved with 9/11, not knowing three branches of government, etc.

 

If someone like William Craig really believes, then that is what I call broken. But, I'm not sure if he really does.

Slavery was completely normal in those days. Are you really saying that wasn't a truth at the time? And for those days, the Mosiac law set down on how to treat slaves was considerably better than what the Egyptians/Persians/etc did with their slaves.

All I'm saying is that when you use the term "better" in this statement, you are expecting it to have more weight than "I like blue".

 

Pain is a subjective experience. Without a being, there is no pain but it is very real. People experience different levels for the same stimuli, but this doesn't keep us from recognizing that dental surgery with anesthesia is a medical procedure, whereas without is torture. Language is a social construct. On the face of it, seems like any language is just as good as another. But languages do require rules and they can be analyzed and we can determine that some would be better than others or better in certain aspects - in relation to communication, which is the purpose.

 

For myself, I think that my religious thinking helps my scientific thinking in terms of never growing used to the marvels of the universe.

IMO, spiritual is a better fit in this sentence. We can have spiritual experiences without any story, rituals or supernatural baggage.

 

 

I don't think anything in the OT is really what God thinks. Not many people do. The NT is a lot closer, but it's still flawed. It's still just a recounting of stories passed down orally of a tumultuous time.

Now, had God written the OT personally, then there might be a problem. But AFAIK, it was written by warring pastorialists.

Replace God with your name. That's what I hear when someone says something like this. Because I have no reason to think they know anything about god, other than one or some might exist.

 

Morals aren't real. It's a label for certain actions that result in an increased rate of survival for a group.

Science isn't real either. It's a label for certain actions that result in models that describe reality.

 

Also, I'm going to say this: if you're suggesting moral absolutism is the case, then that absolute morality needs to come from somewhere. That source must be a perfect source of good morality, because all "evil" is is the deviation from good morality. This source is almost always God. Taking a stance on morality like yours makes it almost impossible for you to refute the existence of an omnibenevolent entity. Again, you should really look at the science of the matter.

Very little, maybe nothing is absolute in this universe. Moral tenants have degrees of freedom that adjust based on conditions, I agree with you there. It doesn't follow that therefore anything goes. And some tenants are less flexible than others. I cannot think of a situation where treating people as property would be better than not. If it does exist, that doesn't make it any better in the rest of the situations.

 

But, let's pretend that we agree that shoving a hot pocker in someone's anus is absolutely wrong, for all time, everywhere. Why is God needed for that? As you alluded to yourself, we are just mapping the human condition, nothing about God. The moral rules themselves are not gold tablets, just ape grunts.

Damn! it looks like I will still be stuck with the churchgoers after I die.

LOL, reminds me of Blazzing Saddles. We'll take the murderers, the detestable and the liars, but NOT the faithless!

 

I'm guessing you didn't read the Bible verses I gave at the top of this thread. I'm pretty sure the preist and the Levite were both wrong and the atheist did what was right and probally has a way better chance of getting into heaven then the other 2.

I don't think Samaritans were atheists. A different sect of Judaism. Like Protestant and Catholic. A good message all the same, but no way can I see anything about atheists or heaven from that.

 

What does the bible say about non-believers?

 

Revelation 21:8

 

But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”

Said the atheist to the theist. You really might want to look into the philosophy of morality.

 

It wasn't wrong at the time.

 

 

And, seriously, this conversation can't produce any results. I start with the idea that morals aren't real. You think they are. There can be no constructive discourse.

If that were true, there'd be a universal code of ethics every society would follow. This is clearly not the case. Morals differ by culture.

Cultures have different eating habits and living habits, that doesn't make them all equal in terms of health. If we view morality as a "diet" for society and we are concerned for societal health, then we can see that while there will be more than one good diet, there will be terrible diets and bad choices that are obvious.

 

If you view morality as just a matter of taste and that human suffering is not a concern, then I agree with you that there can be no constructive discourse. Similarly, if someone doesn't value evidence and reason, then there is no need to discuss anything reasonably with them. Measuring human suffering isn't a science yet, but that doesn't mean we can't get answers even at the extremes. I think we know that slavery and rape are not conducive to human flourishing. They are wrong answers. This is more obvious to me than the world being round.

If KCA is irrelevent to empty space, then I say it is irrelevent to the beginnings(or transformations) of the universe. Quantum oddities in empty space are far more applicable to an early universe than a chicken and an egg.

 

Basically, as soon as an explanation is given, you will say that isn't "nothing". You are demanding magic and a magician.

The video, and Krauss' idea, really do nothing to dispel the KCA. The ideas that Krauss espouse are not a true nothing in any sense of the word.

 

The Christian God, by definition, exists uncaused and eternally.

I'm not speaking as a scientist, but I think Krauss is talking about nothing in the only real sense that we have, whereas KCA is speaking from ignorance.

 

I could define the universe or the multiverse as existing uncaused and eternal. It assumes far less than a God.

 

I thought a short video in response would be appropriate.

 

One big glaring thing that sticks out to me in the OP's vid is that we never observe nothing or matter coming into existence in the normal world. An egg or a baby is just transformation of atoms, not "something coming into existence". It is just the intuitive application of what we see in our normal day to day lives onto the universe. Science can do so much better.

Also consider gear ratio if you haven't done so already.

To be fair, I think it is very likely that self-proclaimed Atheists enjoy better demographics. Probably more conversion towards religion than away in prison and I think they probably under report as well(I would try to fit in and wouldn't trust anonymity). All that said, the data is still very much in favor of atheism.

That God-concept is a theological invention that bears no logical relationship to reality. God is defined to be a "spirit," and as such is not observable by any instruments in the physical world. But if God really is separate from the physical universe, how did he manage to create it?

If he was part of the physical universe that he created, wouldn't that imply he created himself? I would expect a creator to be separate from his creation. There is no reason for me to believe it, but since we are speculating, why not? Couldn't God exist in a different universe and invoke its will from there?

 

Also, this theological invention has evolved, I think gods were seen as very much a part of the physical world until rather recently.

 

 

You have no idea what my ideas are, yet feel qualified to dismiss them.

slur removed by mod,

 

When people make extraordinary claims, it makes sense to be highly skeptical, especially if they are just some random person on the web. This is how we avoid investing in Nigerian accounts and believing in all kinds of consipiracy theories.

 

Don't promise me money, show me the money.

How do you do a logical definition of how faith in god works using the idea of cognitive dissonance?

Why would it be logical?

 

Many people feel that their spouse is the best person for them, above anyone else. Logically, they may admit that given so many in the world, that this isn't so, but yet they "feel" this way.

 

For many people I think, God works because people enjoy the feeling and see no alternative. Logic is actually a distraction.

The human mind.... God was created so it was easier to understand the things that we were once fearful of. Such examples include natural disasters, unexplainable phenomenae (eclipses)... etc. However, a belief in the supernatural may have also instilled hope in many of our ancestors... so in some way, belief in God may have functioned as an advantage in evolution, thus making us more prone to belief in a supernatural deity/deities. Now, this is just speculation on my part.

to be genetic in nature, I think it would need to be more basic/general. Just thinking about a pack of wolves, not everyone can be the Alpha-male/female. If they all try to be constantly, the group would fail. There must be those willing to follow and a few willing to lead. To follow a leader is to outsource your judgement to another. God is just the ultimate leader, who of course has sub-leaders speaking for him.

 

On the individual level, the placebo effect can be effective even today, so imagine thousands of years ago when we basically had no medicine. This is again a trust issue. Trusting that something will work, even with evidence to the contrary.

 

But as far as understanding reality, I think it gets in the way. The more knowledge you acquire, the more thinking you do, I would think the less likely you will be lead. But, even if these speculations are correct, it doesn't mean that mythology is required.

And I presume that we could chose the animal we were growing in our vat - I love beef in every form; but I get told not to eat it too much due to the various fats in it. Other meats have broadly similar tastes and have the advantage of being healthier; but suffer from being very hard to get hold of and thus very expensive. Bison/Buffalo for grilling, Ostrich for burgers, Horse (good stuff not old nags) for casseroles etc - all great substitutes and possibly better than beef, just too expensive at the moment.

Not to mention some Salmon or Marlin without mercury or pesticides.

 

Hmm. How about eating ourselves? MyMeat yuck.

Yes, of course it can. I agree. IMO, it matters not what the dictionary or one region states is "proper." I posit that what's relevant when discussing rhymes is the pronunciation used by the speaker and their accent and emphasis and intonation.

I agree to a point, but when a rapper murders a word to make it rhyme, that hurts

 

the gold digger was false

now she suck my balse

 

you get the idea.

I say his agenda is as I described it, visibly - whether he is willing to admit it or not.

I say your agenda is to arm the anarchists and terrorists, resulting in a revolution that will result in you being our overlord. Therefore, you can make no valid point on this issue.

 

 

I don't want to see what happens when a homemade mac11 with a 30 round clip is dropped on the floor of a crowded nightclub or used to rob a grocery store. "I didn't mean to shoot anyone" will be an even more often repeated phase.

Would home made bombs be analogous?

 

 

I would be curious to see the results if American gangs were in a regulated country like the UK, would it make any difference in their activities? Would they overwhelm law enforcement the way they do in the U.S.? arc

Why are "American" gangs different than the UK? Genetics? Satan? GUNS?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJDDgSqOsHM

 

 

You might have to ban ductape, hacksaws, pipe, hardware stores and anybody who knows how to change the oil in their car.

therefore, all weapons....nukes, chemicals, etc. must be freely distributed. One argument from the extremes deserves another.

That is ad hominem. All I intended to do was draw attention towards a way we can solve this whole housing issue because I am a victim of it. I'd like to see it solved soon. If we need to extend the duration of loans to reduce the cost of living, then why not try?

 

I have yet to see a friend of mine move out of their parents house. I did it once and could not afford it

You're also a victim of not having a supermodel girlfriend. To be independent, you need to at least have a job. Don't you think? One thing students do is go in together a rent a place.

 

If you do need to stay with you parents, try to make lemonade of the situation. Help out with laundry, etc. as if you are working for the rent. I think the American's culture of stressing that kids leave the nest will need to be modified. Kids can be independent while living with their parents. Parents don't have to wait for kids to leave before changing the relationship between them. Doing this will also help if/when the parent becomes dependent on the child in later years.

I wonder if a constitutional amendment will be needed to make it legal across the entire country. Any thoughts on the ruling or this question?

That's how I understand it, but this should provide a path for more states in similar situations. I would like to see an amendment that borrows from the Declaration in regards to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness regardless of race, creed, gender or sexual orientation.

 

But that isn't going to happen anytime soon.

So, Mr. Snowden, speaking from direct personal experience on the matter, says that he had the capacity for direct, warrantless wiretapping, and that, even by formal rules of practice, warrants weren't even a "speed-bump" --

Maybe he's lying? Putting my conspiracy hat on, isn't it a little convenient that he spilled the beans ahead of Xi Jinping's first visit here to listen to Obama complain about his country's cyber crimes? Then he ends up in Hong Kong? He doesn't want to live in the US, but China is his beacon of free speech?

What stats? The bogus ones in the article cited by john5746? Those are bogus for two reasons: One is that they don't jibe with other statistics I've read. Soccer does have a problem with brain injuries, but it's not number one in girls sports. Basketball and perhaps softball top soccer. None of them is as dangerous as cheerleading.

 

The other reason those stats are bogus is because the article implies that heading the ball is the cause of those concussions. That's false reporting. Headers are way down the list of causes of concussions in soccer. Number one by far is head to body. Head to ground, head to goal post, inadvertent head to ball make up almost all of the rest. Banning heading won't fix the problem of concussions in soccer.

Here are some more bogus stats:

 

http://www.momsteam.com/health-safety/concussion-rates-high-school-sports

 

Concussion rates are increasing in high school sports.

 

The current rates per 100,000 athletic exposures (an AE is one athlete participating in one organized high school athletic practice or competition, regardless of the amount of time played), according to the two most recent studies (8,10) are as follows:

Football: 64 -76.8

Boys' ice hockey: 54

Girl's soccer: 33

Boys' lacrosse: 40 - 46.6

Girls' lacrosse: 31 - 35

Boys' soccer: 19 - 19.2

Boys' wrestling: 22 - 23.9

Girls' basketball: 18.6 - 21

Girls' softball: 16 - 16.3

Boys' basketball: 16 - 21.2

Girls' field hockey: 22 - 24.9

Cheerleading: 11.5 to 14

Girls' volleyball: 6 - 8.6

Boys' baseball: Between 4.6 - 5

Girls' gymnastics: 7

Girls' swim/dive: 2

Girls' track/field: 2

Boys' track/field: 2

Boys' swim/dive: 1

 

So, soccer is indeed #1, with lacrosse for girls. This does make sense, looking at the pics you posted. For most of the players, soccer is indeed more of a contact sport than basketball or softball. Why would you think it would have lower concussions?

 

You are correct that concussions are generally not cuased by heading the ball. But, there is more to brain injuries than concussions.

 

http://www.physicianspractice.com/mri/mri-detects-brain-injuries-caused-heading-soccer-balls

 

People generally know when they have had a concussion and there is much effort to minimize them and treat them. But, slight damage such as with heading over the long term is not being considered. I think banning for younger players and education for older makes sense.

I would say that because metadata is private, while such databases can exist they should be carefully overseen. I don't count "trust us, there's oversight, but it's top secret" as oversight. I don't see how secret oversight of a secret program offers any guarantee that abuse will be detected or punished.

I agree, which is why I made a proposal, rather than just support the status quo. Digital communications will just increase, with products(3D printing) being sent over the air. Threats will increase, so more and more metadata will be available and it will be easier and easier to pull a McCarthy on those in power or fighting power. But, suggesting the gathering of no data isn't a solution.

proximity, sounds like your stance is that databases should not exist. Good luck with that.