28 May 08
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThe idea that nothing has a form is flatly absurd.
The idea that nothing has a form is flatly absurd. Say it out loud a few times; laughter is healthy.
The form of the letter 'e' is tied to ancient Mesopotamian economics.
I agree. However, I don't have time to invent a better language, nor the time to teach it to others. If you can think of a better way to explain that "nothingness" can only exist, or not exist, if you prefer, in one way, whilst there are many ways for existance to exist.
The form of the letter 'e' is tied to ancient Mesopotamian economics.
Fascinating. And that's a lovely job of explaining the origins of the letter e. You could explain next perhaps the necessity of a symbol to convey the sound that we associate with the letter e. But you haven't explained the reason for e yet.
28 May 08
Originally posted by Bosse de NagePunishment of killing another set of "my" genes. This punishment acts as detterent for anyone doing it again. There is, of course, a psychological aspect in there too, but that's undoubtedly based in the genetics too (system redundancy in the brain cannot be ruled out though). The fate of the tribe is of no consequence (using anthropomorphic language) to the genes, provided it has no net effect on the continuation of the gene line.
A murders B because A thinks B has bewitched him. C, B's cousin, murders A in revenge. D, the headman of the tribe, expels C from the tribe in accordance with custom, which is applied automatically. C perishes in the wilderness. C's clan vows revenge on A's clan. The tribe is weakened by the struggle, to be ultimately absorbed by some other tribe. The ...[text shortened]...
At what point does custom / culture take over the show and affect the pace of evolution?
The Sci Am article, from the quick skim I did, suggests that cultural phenomena like agriculture are having an effect on gene frequencies. I have no beef with that. Customs and culture memes could easily affect gene frequencies, for example, penalising any given social group with shared characteristics. This is merely a sub-set of Darwinian evolution though.
28 May 08
Nowhere have I painted atheists in a bad light. I LIKE atheists! More to the point, I don't even know who the atheists are and who they aren't --and don't care! I do not prosetylize (sp?)--some Christians believe it their sacred duty to convert all they come into contact with. I am not that kind of Christian.
29 May 08
Originally posted by PinkFloydYou did paint atheists badly. You said that, were you an atheist, you would be violent and murder people if there would be no repercussions. This is tacticly saying that atheists have lower moral standards than Christians. However, you seem to have got the logic around all the wrong way. Even if it was legal, I, as an atheist, still wouldn't kill people, yet you apparently would. It seems secular morality is superior to theistic morality. Indeed, theistic morality demands some of the most egregious crimes (murder, infanticide) be committed in the name of the Lord.
Nowhere have I painted atheists in a bad light. I LIKE atheists! More to the point, I don't even know who the atheists are and who they aren't --and don't care! I do not prosetylize (sp?)--some Christians believe it their sacred duty to convert all they come into contact with. I am not that kind of Christian.
29 May 08
Originally posted by scottishinnzPoint taken. I should have said "if I were not Christian"... Also, I specifically said I would kill only those who did me harm (if there were no repercussions), whereas you make it sound as if I would just murder randomly if I could get away with it. The whole point was that,as a poor worthless sinner, one of my many sins is that of desiring revenge. And if I weren't a Christian I could see myself easily falling victim to it. Whether or not i "should" feel otherwise towards those who hurt me is incidental. I do, so that's what matters.
You did paint atheists badly. You said that, were you an atheist, you would be violent and murder people if there would be no repercussions. This is tacticly saying that atheists have lower moral standards than Christians. However, you seem to have got the logic around all the wrong way. Even if it was legal, I, as an atheist, [i]still wouldn't kill ...[text shortened]... s some of the most egregious crimes (murder, infanticide) be committed in the name of the Lord.
As for theistic morality demanding the crimes you mentioned, I can only assume you are refering to some OT passages, and I don't understand them any better than anyone else. God's ways aren't man's ways, and He must have had a better plan is all I can say. It's not a very satisfying answer, but it's all I have.
29 May 08
ive been to a few different churches in my time and have met some of the worst people i have ever known through them.if someone says to me"im a christian"i am more cautious than of getting involved with them.ive known a lot of drug addicts who are better people.id rather hang with tax collectors and drug addicts who want to repent rather than sunday god botherers.anyway,saturday is realy the sabbath and sunday was created by cothlic hippocrits.i speak with understanding.
29 May 08
Originally posted by PinkFloydI agree, when we compare the OT and NT, there does seem to be a very large discrepancies, and I admire your honesty in saying that you don't know. Many would not admit to that.
Point taken. I should have said "if I were not Christian"... Also, I specifically said I would kill only those who did me harm (if there were no repercussions), whereas you make it sound as if I would just murder randomly if I could get away with it. The whole point was that,as a poor worthless sinner, one of my many sins is that of desiring revenge. A ...[text shortened]... tter plan is all I can say. It's not a very satisfying answer, but it's all I have.
My point is, that I do not believe you to be a person who actually would kill another person, except in the most exceptional of circumstances, as most of us are.
The reasons that we tend to be good are actually from our own intrinsic morality. You know infanticide is wrong - you don't need God to tell you. In fact, God explicitly condones and encourages infanticide, but your own internal morality tells you that such actions are repellent, correct?
We all desire revenge from time to time. The difference is whether we exact that revenge or not. For you, your relgion is part of the reason that you don't exact that revenge. However, to me, that doesn't sound like a very good reason. As the old adage goes "If x [told you to] jumped off a cliff, would you do it?" In many passages, God specifically commands the honour killing of people, yet Christian society is remarkably free of that. I feel that Christians have (largely, but not completely) seen their way clear of the most destructive vestiges of religion, in a way that, for example, many Muslims have not.
29 May 08
Originally posted by secret squirrelBut what you don't seem to understand it that Christians (the ones who know a bit about their religion at least) never claim that Sunday is the Sabbath. They rest on Saturday (Sabbath) as commanded by God but worship on Sunday to commemorate the resurrection which took place the day after the Sabbath.
anyway,saturday is realy the sabbath and sunday was created by cothlic hippocrits.i speak with understanding.
29 May 08
Originally posted by scottishinnzBunk argument.
Apparently quite high. Physicist Victor Stenger suggests that "something" can exist in a multitude of ways, yet "nothing" can only exist in one form. Nothingness is very ordered, and thus very unstable. [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/12/34_unconvincing_arguments_for.php]
First of all, the amount of ways that something can exist in a multitude of ways and nothing can only exist in one form tells us very little about its probability. Even if you consider the multitude to be infinity, who's to say that nothingness is not a massive mass point in the probability distribution? You're just describing the support, not the distribution.
Secondly, the instability of symmetric equilibria comes from possible shocks to its elements. If there are no elements, then where is the instability coming from?
29 May 08
Originally posted by PalynkaI agree. In words that more people might (or might not) find easier to understand if they don't know what a 'mass point' is:
First of all, the amount of ways that something can exist in a multitude of ways and nothing can only exist in one form tells us very little about its probability. Even if you consider the multitude to be infinity, who's to say that nothingness is not a massive mass point in the probability distribution? You're just describing the support, not the distribution.
I find that most people don't realize that a probability calculation is always based on a prior known (or assumed, guessed or estimated) probability. The assumption that in the absence of known priors everything is totally random is unfounded.
The probability that a dice will land on a given number 6, is based on two facts:
1. That it has 6 sides.
2. That it has an equal probability of landing on any side.
If we do not know 2, we cannot simply use 1, to do the calculation.
Simply saying that there are 100 ways to get A and 1 way to get B does not guarantee (or even imply) that the probability of A is higher than B.
Which is why the original question of:
"What was the probability of the universe coming into existence?"
cannot be answered without knowledge of prior probabilities ie we must already know the conditions before the universe existed (if such a time was or is meaningful) and the probability of given types of universes coming into existence or something to that effect.
29 May 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadIn my way of thinking, an insult IS a "harm". I admit, it's not a widely held view, but my life experiences have led to that definition. And I'm sure others' life experiences lead them to conclusions that might seem peculiar to some.
You were ready to cut off someones head if he insulted you. The first post in this thread has your exact statement.
29 May 08
Originally posted by scottishinnzI agree about infanticide--I've always felt that should be a moral imperative if ever there was one. In fact, killing of innocents, period, seems to be a clear definition of evil. Again, I don't know the mind of God, and I accept that.
I agree, when we compare the OT and NT, there does seem to be a very large discrepancies, and I admire your honesty in saying that you don't know. Many would not admit to that.
My point is, that I do not believe you to be a person who actually would kill another person, except in the most exceptional of circumstances, as most of us are.
The reaso ...[text shortened]... most destructive vestiges of religion, in a way that, for example, many Muslims have not.
As for my psyche--I'm afraid you give me too much credit . 🙂 But that's okay--years of therapy haven't changed the fact that I'd rather watch a bully die at my hand than make love to a supermodel (given all the preconditions we have discussed earlier), so I don't expect a forum in the chess club to do so.
30 May 08
1 edit
Originally posted by PinkFloydI don't dispute that an insult is a harm, I do however think that if you would truly kill every person who insulted you, or even kill one person for insulting you, then you are a very bad person indeed. Also you would have your work cut out for you as most of the Muslim world has insulted you indirectly, thats several billion murders for you to work on.
In my way of thinking, an insult IS a "harm". I admit, it's not a widely held view, but my life experiences have led to that definition. And I'm sure others' life experiences lead them to conclusions that might seem peculiar to some.
30 May 08
Originally posted by scottishinnzPerhaps you're right, but it goes both ways.
It is not. It is a genuine desire to psychoanalyse and debate.
If you read my post fully, you'll see that after demonstrating what his self-characterisation paints him as, I denounce that, and say that, in my opinion, he's actually a nice guy, but is trying to paint atheists in a bad light.
Personally, I try to be objective and speak to the ideas about life the atheist propounds. I do the same with Christians as well. Especially with Christians.