andrewcellini

Attacking ideas is one thing, but Jimmy has yet to insult any of us and to insult him back if he had wouldn't be productive. You could just as easily have pointed out any inconsistencies in his argument without resorting to insults. We'll probably get somewhere if we all play nice, even if that somewhere happens to be boring like "agree to disagree." In which countries? In Saudi Arabia, a Muslim theocratic state, women make up the majority of the college students.

As it is probably an extremely touchy subject, they they may cling to ideas about an afterlife or a just god and I doubt I would challenge them on that with such poor timing. If, however, to cope with tragedy they wish to go on some murderous campaign against those they perceive to be the ones behind the tragedy and do so because they believe it is what god has told them I will not only challenge such a belief with reasoning but probably try to get law enforcement involved. It depends, at least in part, on the beliefs used by the individual to cope.

They aren't evil with respect to their beliefs. They may even argue and have biblical (or whatever text) justification for their actions, and others belonging to their religious group might agree that their actions are good or just.

Are you denying that these individuals had religious beliefs which led and were used to justify their actions? That's evidently false.

Which ones? What you presented does not characterize my view of Islam at all. There are passages in both the Bible and Quran which moderate Christians and Muslims do not adhere to, and their lack of adherence may have no biblical or quranic justification such as their treatment of apostates. That is to say there isn't a contradictory passage which corresponds to their actions. I would never say that Islam is a religion of peace or inherently evil, and I would likewise not characterize Christianity in such a way; they contain all sorts of beliefs consistent or otherwise with their respective sacred texts which may or may not be "peaceful."

This "channel of Divine revelation" would be in the same boat as the so-called false prophets, only having their claims and no evidence or sound reasoning to back them. The only direction the first four commandments seem to help lead the society is toward alienation and persecution of other religious groups and groupthink, and that's not even taking into account scriptures which justify persecution. The punishments are enlightened in what sense? That the Catholic church, for example, does not execute apostates or sinners? This enlightenment certainly does not have biblical origins. You also never answered my question: How does one twist a passage prescribing death to a false prophet that is potentially gathering followers when they command the execution of said prophet? It wasn't rhetorical.

Waitforufo, this is frankly asinine. I was talking about the content of the article, not the paper that is used as a source. I even gave you a tip.^ That is the sum total if you refuse to read that specific paper and look at what data they analyzed. It seems the farthest you got was the introduction.

Oh my... The point of the article is that increased conceal and carry does not deter crime and was in response to your unsubstantiated claim that it does. Read the article and understand this papers usage in its proper context. Do you even remember what you wrote?

Your inference does not represent reality. I can, here's one: "The new empirical results reported here provide no support for a net deterrent effect from widespread gun ownership." http://www.nber.org/papers/w8926 and you can even click the pdf as I did. As you would probably say:

That wasn't your response to me so I don't know what point you're trying to prove. You actually said in response to me: I didn't read them all, not all of them are relevant to the topic. Some link to papers from conceal and carry proponents before later rebutting them with others. Do you want me to read them to you before bed as well?

Now you're being absurd. I gave one article which seems to contradict the point you were trying to make with your lone infographic and it carried with it credible sources. You responded with something along the lines of "it does not provide data" which is evidently false if you bother to click the hyperlinks to their sources and have a quick read. For the record you didn't say that either. That doesn't sound fun or even worthwhile unless either (or both) of us learn something.

It's not my problem if you refuse to follow the sources that are provided in the article.

That doesn't seem to be the case, waitforufo. https://www.thetrace.org/2015/10/lower-crime-rates-not-caused-by-concealed-carry/

You don't need all 10 to form a society. The first 4 are nice if you're arbitrarily excluding the religious practices of others. But this is all besides the point of the thread. How does one twist a passage prescribing death to a false prophet that is potentially gathering followers when they command the execution of said prophet? If what they have done is consistent with the written commandment from god - they have found and executed the prophet - then there is no twisting of scripture.

The first 4 commandments have nothing to do with morality and everything to do with an angry, jealous god. Honor thy father and thy mother: that's fine within reason. Honor and respect are earned over the course of the relationship. I do not expect someone with abusive birth parents to respect or honor them (though they may, for some reason, love them). Part of this honoring entails gifts: do abusive parents deserve gifts? The only biblical justification I can find is because god grants the child long life Honour your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you.— Exodus 20:12 (NIV) and that honoring your parents is akin to honoring god "A son honours his father, and a servant his master. If I am a father, where is the honour due me? If I am a master, where is the respect due me?" says the LORD Almighty. "It is you, O priests, who show contempt for my name. But you ask, 'How have we shown contempt for your name?'"— Malachi 1:6 (NIV) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honour_thy_father_and_thy_mother The last 3 are about coveting. What is the justification for there to be laws which make thoughts which can come into consciousness without conscious forethought such as "Damn I wish I had his Mercedes" immoral? How would ones yearning for another's possession cripple the society? That seems on the surface beneficial to the economy as they might go out and buy whatever it is they want. And for coveting thy neighbors wife, so long as you don't act on it a la committing adultery and it doesn't impact your other relationships what is the problem? "People will always manipulate the rules to suit their on personal peccadilloes. " There is no manipulation when a rule says to kill those who have a difference of religious opinion and you follow through with the prescription of said rule. You're following the rule to its logical conclusion.

"'If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." - Leviticus 20:13 NIV http://biblehub.com/leviticus/20-13.htm Or more relevant to the pope in the op: "That prophet or dreamer must be put to death for inciting rebellion against the Lord your God" Deuteronomy 13 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+13%2CTitus+3%3A10%2CTitus+3%3A11%2C2+John+10%2C2+John+11&version=NIV Murder of the innocent is quintessential? Certainly not, but they could just as easily find biblical justification for their actions if they decided to go down his path.

Ghenis Khan was a tengrist, but it doesn't matter to the topic of this thread because his behavior wasn't driven by his religious ideology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan#Religion

The way he didn't brace his handgun with his non dominant hand (and he even removes his non dominant hand before his last shot), I wouldn't be surprised if he wasn't prepared to shoot outside of a range. Also, I'm not sure what the purpose of him taking a knee every shot was, but it seems as though he wasn't prepared to move and shoot either; it seems typically you remain standing as you move, though I've only witnessed instructors doing it at a range. I wouldn't trust him to save my life twice if I were in that cafe, especially against suspects that are willing to shoot back. In a situation as this, what reason would I have to believe that I'll be alright? It isn't apparent that the person has substantial military or police experience, or that they have trained and continue to train with their shooting and tactical skills. All you know is there's another guy in casual clothes who also has a gun.

How is that relevant to the topic of this thread?

I'm sorry if you're taking the criticism personally. I'm not sure how that latter portion of your response clears up how worthiness is relevant or what your model is. The way that you have presented the case for your theory of everything thus far has been ineffective at communicating its efficacy or even what you're really talking about.

Because you're making claims without evidence, and you're making justifiably wrong claims about supposed secrets of thinkers and religious leaders (which was a non sequitur by the way). You're avoiding admitting you have no model because, as you've presented, you have a loose collection of ideas. Also I would argue that I am engaging in conversation with you, but that is off topic. Why is worthiness relevant? This is an obvious diversion tactic to avoid presenting the model you don't have. You've been asked since the beginning of the thread for a model and you seem to always have an excuse. This one is novel for you, though not uncommon among crackpots. Gosh Poe's Law is killing me right now.

All four have books, papers etc written either by them or by their followers (in the case of pythagoras and the latter 2) about their ideas. Einstein won a nobel prize for his published work on the photoelectric effect. He didn't keep it a deep, dark secret. I don't know what you're going on about.

No, why would it? Your claim is presented without evidence and thus can be dismissed without evidence. I could claim the same but you'd have no reason to believe me. If you had a model that you were this confident in why wouldn't you present it?

You have not presented it. As far as I know you do not, just a loose collection of ideas.

Please read the rest of my reply above. Just to be safe: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CellularAutomaton.html this is more detailed: https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cellular_Automata/Mathematical_Model