patrick.net

uomo_senza_nome says

I don't think he has stated any factually wrong statements here. Note the word "factually".

I support the following modes of operations: factually correct, logically correct, mathematically correct, and empirically correct. I do not support politically correct, nor do I have plans to add this feature to my personality.

marcus says

Such claims are very dogmatic and are filled with emotion (at least in my view).

Just because the irrational side of an argument is filled with emotion, doesn't mean the other side is.

Furthermore, the mere presence of strong emotion does not justify a position as I have illustrated in another thread. I'm sure the "honor killings" of women in Saudi Arabia are being done by very, very emotional men. Their feelings are no justification for their actions. Nor should we refrain from condemning honor killings out of fear of offending someone's religious beliefs.

marcus says

YOU SIMPLY CAN NOT PROVE THAT THE HARM DONE BY RELIGION IS GREATER THAN THE GOOD.

Why not? Is someone stated "You simply cannot prove that the harm done by Nazism is greater than the good", I would argue otherwise. Sure, the Nazis built the autoban, reduced unemployment, and advanced rocket science which enabled man to walk on the moon in 1969. But I think we'd all agree that the Holocaust and the deaths in WWII outweighed these benefits.

So, why can't I look at the whole of history and decide that the harm done by religion is greater than the good? I've certainly named many specific and terrible harms committed by Christianity alone. In fact, the list of those harms covered every single century up to and including the present one.

On the other hand, we don't have any concrete evidence that religion does any good that would not be done otherwise. In the absence of religion, societies do not turn into Mad Max dystopias. Mothers don't stop loving their children. Charities don't cease to exist. Compassion doesn't go away. It's arguable that religion does nothing positive since "good people will do good without religion, bad people will do bad without religion, but for good people to do bad, that takes religion".

In any case, what makes religion so freaking special that we cannot question its merits when we can and should question the merits of everything else? Sounds arrogant to me.

marcus says

even assertions that mankinds future is better without the most dogmatic fundamentalists religions, can not be proven

Well, we've tried religion for 12 thousand years, let's try rational thought for just one tenth that time and see if we can come up with some proof. If it's not shitloads better, I'll concede that religion is the best thing since sliced bread.

marcus says

Truth is you guys are quite religious and dogmatic about your atheism, or at least Dan clearly is.

That's like saying I'm dogmatic about the square root of two being an irrational number or that I'm religious about the Earth being round. Or for that matter, that the IRS is religious about your tax return accurately reflecting your income. Facts are facts. Just because I refuse to accept a falsehood does not make me religious.

marcus says

As for why Dan rubs me the wrong way, it's partly because of his tone and his insecurities. I know that his being a jerk is partly traceable to my calling him arrogant since he first made these assertions many months ago. IF he was as smart as he claims to be, he would be able to sit back and see how arrogant they are (or seem) and why. Instead he just gets offended, and acts like even more of a jerk.

Is it just me or does Marcus seem like a very angry person? You know, the type of person that you'd think could go postal. He reminds me of Zen Miller.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/AuBnlNjZq24

I imagine Marcus as being one of those people trapped in a loveless marriage who takes out his frustration and despair on other people never realizing that it's his own fault that nobody likes him because quite frankly he's so damn mean.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/jYa1eI1hpDE&ob=av3e

Dan8267 says

I support the following modes of operations: factually correct, logically correct, mathematically correct, and empirically correct.

You can repeat this until the cows come home, but it won't negate the fact that you're one of the most intellectually dishonest people on this forum. When you aren't asserting how you're all about truth and empirical analysis, what I mostly hear is hyperbole, bluster and assertions that aren't even slightly backed up.

Dan8267 says

In any case, what makes religion so freaking special that we cannot question its merits when we can and should question the merits of everything else? Sounds arrogant to me.

Of course we can and should question it. That's a FAR cry from asserting that any and all belief in God is harmful to the human race.

By questioning it, religion will hopefully evolve. It's not going away, and I don't see how you can't know that. If you were sane, you would argue for better religion rather than no religion.

I happen to be in a little different place when folks start talking "religion". I do not not not think God intended for us to be "religious". I am pretty sure that MAN took what God had said,instructed,suggested and F'ed it up by including MAN ideas (we call these religion). I am pretty sure that God made it clear, he did not want all of this religion, all God wanted(s) was for MAN to "have a personal relationship with me and try to do what I say is good to do." Tho opposite of that message would be, "do not have a personal relationship with me and do whatever you feel is right." Now, I'm not the smartest dude on here, but one of those sure sounds alot like an athiests view.

Dan8267 says

I don't worry about god's existence. I worry that some of the "silly followers" will hear voices in their heads and interpret those voices as god telling them to invade Iraq resulting in the deaths of countless men, women, and children.

Dan,

All life forms compete for limited resources. Darwin called it "the struggle for life." Nature is "red in tooth and claw." Strong animals overpower, kill, and eat weak animals. It's been that way for billions of years. Science has proven that.

For humans, competition for limited resources is called warfare. Natural resources are a zero-sum game: there's only so much farmland, fresh water, oil, and metals to go around. Countless men, women, and children have been dying in wars for thousands (if not, millions) of years for this very reason.

Here in America, our entire economy is built on the assumption of cheap oil: the automobile, the single-family house in the suburbs, freeways, shopping malls, plastics, medicine, industrial agriculture, etc etc. Our oil production peaked in the 1970s and has been declining ever since. No more cheap oil. That's a big problem.

We went to war with Iraq to steal their oil. Everybody knows this, but nobody wants to say it.

Like any good politician, Dubya had to pander to his various supporters to stay in power. Obviously, the "Left" wasn't going to support an invasion of Iraq in a desperate grab for critical resources. "No blood for oil" was the slogan. Fair enough. But the problem is, liberals like to drive cars too. Liberals don't like $5/gallon either.

So what was Mr. Bush to do? Since his political base was made up of mostly Pentecostal fucktards, the best thing to do (as a politician) was say that "God" personally told him to invade Iraq to punish those evil Moslems that attacked God's Holy Christian Nation of Amurrica on 9/11 (even though they didn't).

Now, maybe Bush really did believe that God told him to invade Iraq. I guess we'll never really know. Either way, we had to go to war in Iraq to keep the cheap oil flowing. We would have gone to War in Iraq with or without Bush's voices in his head.

But as we all know, the war was an "epic fail", Iraqi oil never made it to market, oil went to $140/bbl in 2008, and the economy crashed anyway.

Life is a cruel carnival of death and destruction. Predation and oppression have been going on for billions of years. Humans are of no more value than any other animal. Science has proven that.

Get over it.

marcus says

you're one of the most intellectually dishonest people on this forum

Examples please.

marcus says

That's a FAR cry from asserting that any and all belief in God is harmful to the human race.

As I've said before, I don't assert, I conclude. Pick up a history book dude.

marcus says

religion will hopefully evolve. It's not going away

That remains to be seen. Religion is decreasing in the technologically and scientifically advanced parts of the world. It remains strong in tribal societies where life is cheap.

And change goes against the very nature of religion. Religion is about power over people and change threatens that.

wthrfrk80 says

Natural resources are a zero-sum game: there's only so much farmland, fresh water, oil, and metals to go around.

Actually, no. Resource usage does not have to be a zero-sum game. There are more than enough atoms in the universe. We just need to use them efficiently and that's certainly not a zero sum game.

We can increase farm productivity with technology. We can build multi-story hydroponic farms that are free from insects and pesticides and are temperature controlled to allow the growing of any crops anywhere.

We recycle raw resources like metals and construct new composite materials so that theft through war is no longer necessary.

We could solve the problem of 1/3rd of the world not having access to clean drinking water using only existing technology. The theme is that technology, science, and compassion are the ways to solve problems, not religion. Praying for more water ain't going to help.

Dan8267 says

Actually, no. Resource usage does not have to be a zero-sum game. There are more than enough atoms in the universe. We just need to use them efficiently and that's certainly not a zero sum game.

Dan, I can't take this seriously. It's rediculously expensive to get into space. Then you have to try to support life in space...not an easy thing to do. I think you've been reading too much science fiction.

Dan8267 says

We can increase farm productivity with technology. We can build multi-story hydroponic farms that are free from insects and pesticides and are temperature controlled to allow the growing of any crops anywhere.
We recycle raw resources like metals and construct new composite materials so that theft through war is no longer necessary.
We could solve the problem of 1/3rd of the world not having access to clean drinking water using only existing technology. The theme is that technology, science, and compassion are the ways to solve problems, not religion. Praying for more water ain't going to help.

If it was economical to do any of that stuff, "we" would already be doing it. Corporations and individuals would already be getting rich. Warren Buffet would be pouring his money into it.

I'm not suggesting religion is the way to do necessary secular things like food production, sewage treatment, road building, etc. You knocked over a straw-man.

Anyway, my point was: the Iraq war was an economic war (like most wars), not a religious war. Sure, Bush had to use religious bullshit language to get the support of his wacko Pentecostal base, but it was not a religious war. A religious war against Islam would be suicide. There are over a billion of them...many of them more than willing to die for the cause, unlike we pampered Americans. Bush might be stupid, but he's not THAT stupid.

From the "Ron Paul polling at 6%..." topic in the Politics forum:

Dan8267 says

I don't think Bush invaded Iraq in response to 9/11. Bush didn't think there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11. He just lied about that. Bush invaded Iraq because of economic interests. Obama hasn't distinguished himself from Bush in this regard or many others.

I think you and I are in agreement then.

I'm not suggesting that zero-sum games aren't profitable to individuals. Obviously the are or the parasites wouldn't play them. What I'm suggesting is that zero-sum games aren't necessary for running an economy. Yes, engaging in zero-sum games may be the cheapest or most profitable way to exploit a resource, but in the long run there is greater prosperity for society if we avoid zero-sum games, and we can do this. We'll have to change the rules of the game and the way we reward people, but it would be worth it.

What's really cooky is that people want to attack Christians on behalf of Luciferianism.

Dan8267 says

This is from Project Censored. There were a whole bunch of articles and estimates by human rights groups a few years ago. I don't remember where they are though.
The main problem with estimating deaths is that politicians like to count dead bodies precisely because this grossly underestimates the number of casualties. After all, if you blow up a body, you can't count it because all the pieces are too small.

Thanks for this info. I'm just catching up with this thread after taking off for, ironically, Christmas holiday. I've been very upset about how much of my tax money went to the invasion of countries with land over huge oil fields.

wthrfrk80 says

My question is: why are some things acceptable, and other things not? Is there some scientific way to "prove" rape is wrong? I agree with you fully that rape is wrong. But I can't prove it scientifically. Or at least, I don't know how to prove it scientifically. I'm not aware of anyone else who's been able to prove it scientifically. Maybe you are smarter than the rest of us and can prove it scientifically.

I've taken to the idea that by showing the effects of some acts on society, that we will agree that we don't want those effects so we don't want the acts. The effects can be shown scientifically, but we've got a long way to go to get to a common understanding on, for example, the longterm social or psychological effects of acts like murder. Still, there is some agreement that we don't want the crying mother who just found out their child died in war.

Dan8267 says

No argument I have given is based on emotion. And quoting Wikipedia, as I have said many times, is a sign of intellectual laziness.

I don't agree. I look at the references used in a Wikipedia entry before using the entry as a source and will often just use the references that meet peer review and historical review, source standards with which I've found consistency and connection to my understanding instead of using the wikipedia entry.

Dan8267 says

Because of this seven became a holy, magic number. This is how people in ancient Middle East and southern Europe thought about the universe. They thought numbers were magical. This isn't something we modern people take seriously, but the ancients certainly did.

I wish modern people didn't take it seriously, but many still do! Agreement happens so slowly!(especially, when jerks like me go back and comment on three month old threads...)

FunTime says

I look at the references used in a Wikipedia entry

If the article is subverted, the list of references is biased.

Dan8267 says

Physics leaves no room for the supernatural.

But leaves plenty of room for things people don't understand and might call "supernatural." Holy shit, there's some weird stuff going on!

Dan8267 says

If the article is subverted, the list of references is biased.

Ah, I think I can see how that would happen. I usually look for favorite references and go look at them, but I can see how bias would occur, even given the supposed collaborative genius of wikis. I still don't know enough about how they manage wikipedia to take it very seriously. I just keep thinking I'm going to read it at a point when some innaccurate info snuck in. What you're suggesting is even worse.

wthrfrk80 says

But as we all know, the war was an "epic fail", Iraqi oil never made it to market, oil went to $140/bbl in 2008, and the economy crashed anyway.

Maybe it was a fail, but as I watched the news these kinds of headlines seemed to suggest U.S. companies were benefiting from the war.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/earnings/2008-10-30-exxonmobil_N.htm