Ben Banana

It doesn't mean a single thing to me. You should have clarified yourself sooner.

We are not hard wired...

If you want an answer based on the principles that we have conceived to define life while neglecting our native concept of life, then yes, you can *mostly* consider them alive. It also depends on how specific your definition of life is. Some people tailor a definition of terms given the importance of their meaning within limited contexts. In conclusion, "Are stars alive?" is just a boring rhetorical question. Elaborating on semantics, there are never any exact synonymns between two words because -- though they may be defined in the same way -- words can have a varying consistuency of multiple definitions that apply in different situations. "Life" ... really? That's so useless. Even the word "life" evaluated in just the way as you are most familiar to think of it (i.e. plants, animals, carbon-based lifeforms with DNA etc.) can have any number of simultaneously valid definitions. Words are tools. Frontier pushers often make themselves custom glossaries and give words their own spin to keep things concise and locally-effective. Even though the scientific consensus is that viruses are not considered alive, they are certainly more relevant to "life sciences" than stars... No matter how much you can translate the definition of life to unfamiliar objects, no one will be impressed. It's like trying to invent a new domain of "life science" when you should just go into cosmology / astrophysics !!! Yes, stars are alive if you prefer that term over anything that might be more appropriate to describe such characteristics. If you're creating an evaluation of star's "life," then you may talk about them in the sense of being alive or not being alive (before the nuclear-fusion process ignites or after they burn out)... Bleh. This is boring.

By exploding!!!

Sigh.

I don't feel like I am credible to rewrite it.

I have become more hopeful. I don't. They can't chose to absolutely behave in any higher degree of rationality. They can try, but that's not how it works and I never said it works like that either. Except North Korea. I've realized it is very naive to distrust the condition of humanity in its entirety. Except for some extraordinary characteristics, it is incomprehensible for the most part. Of course society itself may be distrusted, but it is virtually impossible for the total condition to be evaluated to an extent that determines whether its quality is merely good or bad. I trust that it is 'good enough' by a concept that is comparable to the explanations for why biological evolution works. It's 'meta-causal.' I find this extraordinarily irrelevant. I'm not merely trusting luck. Problems are solved by problem solvers. The ironic thing no one here realizes is... what problem? What could be sort out by itself? Why may you have lost hope for humanity? Despair? Negative societal evaluation? You do have the burden of explaining why it is reasonable to be hopeless in the first place. Honestly, that is not a reasonable idea. I assert that it is an emotion, and that's good. Anyone who claims otherwise is saying nonsense. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with emotions being appart from reason, although emotions may cause trouble. Isn't that how you classify a thought as an emotion? My sense of trust is an emotion based on my personal experiences and observations. I do not have a solid empirical argument for hope, and you bastards certainly don't either, especially to the contrary opinion. I am annoyed by your expectations. This is ludicrous. You can model the system virtually. I don't believe there are any key examples to name which more effectively demonstrate how such a model corresponds to proper phenomena than any other observations (aside from their value in clarity), but of course it is useful to observe specifics. We can share those observations, but it is useless to name any single observation as a key reason. I suspect it to be a 'meta-causal' phenomenon. I will claim that the first "sort of thing" you name is very different from the "sort of thing" that I am trying to discuss.

I'm just one of those people who has grasped more hope for humanity due to simple observational events. I find it sensible to trust the condition of our society and believe there's naturally enough people that are sufficiently desperate and enabled to collectively improve society through simple honest means. Our world is strong enough. Society will sort itself out. We will become smarter and happier without a 2 page topic designated for people to point out and discuss specific strong-points and optimisms of our society. There's no particularly strong and special reasons or highlightable facts aside mere nature. I find it futile to discuss specific reasons for hope. Many people have lost hope in humanity, it seems. That might be a fun explanation for its apparent success that I believe in.

It's all homicide. In that case, I don't care whether you call it murder or not. Then, the word "murder" is the problem. That's really my point. So beside semantics, your statements seem to support mine. Is that correct? Also, the context of my point is initiation, rationalization and excuse (i.e. becoming desensitized to homicide), not judgement. I don't see how your attention to my "fallacy" is relevant. Thanks for clarifying semantics anyway. Also, my controversial analogy was intended to develop the sense of how mormon missionaries are clearly decieved by a mechanism which virtually behaves like a draft -- in other words, it is not exactly mandatory like a draft, but it... is. Well, this probably deserves some explanation, especially for those who are not familiar with the attitude of their ideology (I'm an "ex-Mormon"). Uh, unfortunately I don't feel comfortable talking about this. It's pretty unfortunate though... maybe you can find some stories about it somewhere else online. It's also sad how plainly obvious it can be, yet many these guys are in the position where they can not see it. It's a freaking disgusting and a horrifically depressing machine. It's so sick. I might be more open to some PM discussions... Are you just pointing out the irony? I hope so, haha.

No, it's more like getting a salesman to stop throwing their pitch. You can't talk to them as missionaries, you have to talk to them as people. Otherwise, they're comparable to military soldiers. When people "kill in the act of war," someone somewhere is trying to pretend that it is not considered human murder. Regardless of arbitrary legal evaluations, it is murder. This kind of deceptive and self validating hierarchy of power is pretty much the best dilution of evil ever conceived. General says, "but I didn't kill anyone, it was my soldiers." Soldiers say, "but I was merely told to kill for the patriotic sake of my nation. It was a collective intention, as designated by our commanders." (Note: Yes. I'm a pacifist, but I don't hold anything against soldiers in particular just as much as I don't hold anything against missionaries. The above analogy was merely an example. I will be happy to find people demonstrating personal evaluations of their positions in such mechanisms more profoundly. I understand that they may be considered necessary, although I disagree. I find the resolutive prospects of violence to be an addictive drug; however, often it is challenging and difficult to prevail otherwise.) Neither should you make this a matter of authority. The point is to recognize that this hierarchical conversion machine exists. Avoid arguing about whether the hierarchy exists for efficiency or whether it is relevant. You need to discuss the missionaries themselves, their life and their perception of the missionary activity they are participating in. Don't question these aspects on their behalf, you need to be critical of them and be inquistive about their influence to you. I'm pretty sure by then they'll want to run out of your home to "stop wasting their time." Utilize their memorized pitches in your intended discussion and draw your points from anything they say. I don't see how you can have a reasonable dialogue otherwise.

Ok then... If you want to reason, I guess it's better to not discuss the religious text. They don't understand it. You should critically reason about their contract with absurdity. First you need to shift their honesty from being as *an anonymously faithful servant to God* to a more personal attitude. If you fail to succeed in that, then call them trespassers and get rid of them. I'm pretty sure, that's all you can do.

It would have been easier to say that even the things it didn't prophesy (the historic accounts) have been demonstrated to be complete rubbish. I mean, do you even need a demonstration? No. "Yeah, that's right. Jesus walked on water... I'm willing to believe that because I'm willing to believe he's a deity with such power... because... uhm... the Bible ought to be true... because uhm... It's historically correct." All you need to win is the religious text itself.

Woah, those are some intense questions. Maybe you should ask the Flying Spaghetti Monster? I really don't know. I have no experience with it. See, this is crazy. Religious advice sucks. So my advice is (I'm just trying): Ask your girlfriend for the advice. Is she worried about it? I really don't understand how religious figures can't feel guilt for themselves spreading nonsense, or at least things they're best not to have word on. Also, don't fear a resolute argument. Fear persistent arguments. You'll need to think on that. Well, you can try to be bluntly honest to them. That doesn't have anything to do with how nice you are. You can't "wave them off" in a nice way. You should try to reason them out in a nice way. Trap them (as long as you can) for the sake of your reason as they sought to trap you for the sake of their bullshit. That'll be fun. Then offer cookies (i.e. ask them to make cookies to "emulate the charity of Christ"). Be honest to them. (And remember, this is just a game!) Also, I think there's been some interesting points brought up in this 'game' (considering the entire topic). Is anyone interested in actually discussing these things?

Ah, I miss this church. It was fun.

First of all, I must explain what I mean by "The Sandwich." The Sandwich is a supreme entity who gifted humanity with consumptive satisfaction (i.e. the true version of Prometheus, akin to Abrahamic religion vs Greek "mythology"). The Sandwichian belief is that he/she (or maybe it) is considered God (or a God, or... maybe not anything theistic... if you are not of the Sandwichian belief.) I am here to disprove the Sandwichian belief. However, there's one question I probably should ask prior: Where the tomatoes did Sandwichianism come from anyway? Although, I think regardless of this sensible question, Sandwichianism does have some great prospects. I would rate these prospects... ehm... about 6/5 stars. It's kind of like you know, how religion always seems to give everyone awesome morals and stuff, you know..? Yep, in that general sense. Most of all, I mean, we certainly can not refute the possibility that Sandwichianism is true, although to some it may sound quite unlikely. That is why I myself am agnostic regarding Sandwichianism... no wait I mean I reject it. Yeah that was the topic, wasn't it? Back on topic! Ok so here's my logical proof then: 1. agiomdfffffkoFWakoscagsuutzzdnngxdyilb zgrazaawe 2. jdgkbzlkzgljzgiopzbmflFWbbki 3. cklsvjvzpeisjgnhnmkl ceasz I hope you thought that was a clever proof.

Common guys, let's get back on topic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URRiBWd6Ax4

So... is the consensus on sandwich god ready?

This nonsense is getting funny.

I hope we stick with this philosophy... Only joking.

@chandragupta What are you talking about? I'm thinking god is a sandwich!

Hi everyone. I came here to notify someone that they are wrong. I read "faked moon landing" so this is my message for the day: you are wrong. I would have rather used insults, but nevermind. Thank you for your time.

Like a sandwich!

You are interested in these topics? Find some problems in them. That requires experience in the first place... Then solve or at least study the specific area of problems you find which can potentially be improved. Good luck. If you don't have enough experience to even recognize issues or topics of interest associated with your fields, then what the heck are you doing with your life? Seriously. Go talk to your professors or whatever.

Yes indeed. God certainly could be my sandwich as well. I like God, it's yummy. That's cool. Keep in mind that you're conceiving god. Thanks dude. Stay smart as you are and you will go far in life.

That's not an algorithm anyway. I hate these stupid CS-homework questions from people who are in the wrong place.