tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post8347642667000803003..comments2024-03-16T05:00:38.826-04:00Comments on Egnorance: "Grief is the price of knowledge"mregnorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-73364961544313464422012-07-25T02:21:23.102-04:002012-07-25T02:21:23.102-04:00mregnor:
“[I would also like to point out that th...mregnor:<br /><br />“[I would also like to point out that there are plenty of philosophical traditions that beleive there is an absolute morality without the necessity of a god (the Platonic school is one).]<br /><br />Plato was very much a theist, and Neoplatonism was quite close to Christianity in much of its theology. I don't specifically know Plato's views on the source of moral law, but your implication that Plato was an atheist is wrong.”<br /><br />I’m not sure how you could read so much wrong from one sentence.<br /><br />I referred to the Platonic school of thought not Plato himself. I did not in any way imply that Plato was an atheist. Plato’s theories of form, in short, posit that there is an existence of transcendent ideals that exist outside of our material existence. Therefore in the Platonic tradition one could be an atheist or a theist and believe in transcendent realities because within the Platonic tradition <i>those transcendent realities exist necessarily regardless of God’s existence</i>.<br /><br />Please excuse me for a moment.<br /><br />……………………………………..________<br />………………………………,.-‘ …………….“~.,<br />………………………..,.- …………………………..“-.,<br />…………………….,/………………………………………..â€:,<br />…………………,?………………………………………………\,<br />………………./…………………………………………………..,}<br />……………../………………………………………………,:`^`..}<br />……………/……………………………………………,: ……/<br />…………..?…..__…………………………………..:`………../<br />…………./__.(…..“~-,_…………………………,:`………./<br />………../(_….â€~,_……..“~,_………………..,:`…….._/<br />……….{.._$;_……â€=,_…….“-,_…….,.-~-,},.~â€;/….}<br />………..((…..*~_…….â€=-._……“;,,./`…./ ………../<br />…,,,___.\`~,……“~.,………………..`…..}…………../<br />…………(….`=-,,…….`……………………(……;_,,-â€<br />…………/.`~,……`-………………………….\……/\<br />………….\`~.*-,……………………………….|,./…..\,__<br />,,_……….}.>-._\……………………………..|…………..`=~-,<br />…..`=~-,_\_……`\,……………………………\<br />……………….`=~-,,.\,………………………….\<br />…………………………..`:,,………………………`\…………..__<br />……………………………….`=-,……………….,%`>–==“<br />…………………………………._\……….._,-%…….`\<br />……………………………..,< `.._|_,-&``................`\<br /><br />-LAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-6589333499996780842012-07-25T02:00:28.133-04:002012-07-25T02:00:28.133-04:00mregnor:
“Is it possible for something to be mora...mregnor:<br /><br />“Is it possible for something to be morally wrong, even of all human beings thought it morally right?<br /><br />If it is possible, then morality is objective. If it is not possible, then morality is not objective.”<br /><br />For a user defined system, so long as it is useful, the consensus reality <i>is</i> the objective reality. Using standard mathematical operations and real numbers, 2+2=4. Always. Using current conventional English usage a banana is the fruit of an herb which is generally curved, longer than it is wide, and green to yellow in color. Always. Is it possible that 2+2=5? No. Is it possible that what we call a banana is really called a Jabberwocky? No. Why? Because these things are defined by the humans that use them. If God said 2+2=5 He would be wrong, not the system of mathematics we have developed. <br /><br />I use mathematics and language as examples because they are often used in the manner that morality is used as proof of God’s existence. “For X to really have meaning then it must exist transcendentally in the mind of God”. This is ludicrous. Take for example the word ‘gagh’. This is the Klingon word for a meal of live serpent worms. If you take the view that language requires a transcendent mind, then you must believe that ‘gagh’, a word that refers to a non-existent food item, a word in existence for only 25 years, as part of a language that has existed for only 33 years, as the native tongue of a non-existent species, has always existed in the mind of God. If you really believe that then … well I don’t know what to say to you.<br /><br />So, the question is “Is morality a user defined system with usefulness?” I believe the answer to that question is probably yes. If that is the case the moral argument for God falls apart. This does not mean that morality is not objective (in the common definition), just that it is not absolute.<br /><br />“If morality is objective, it seems plain to me that such transcendent intentionality requires God.”<br /><br />You are in error. There are philosophical systems that deduce transcendent realities independent of God, id est morality has a non-material existence whether or not God exists. This is the other problem with the moral argument for God that so many (modern) theologians ignore. William Lane Craig has been taken to task for his version of the moral argument by philosophers for this very reason.<br /><br />-LAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-79088354325578002052012-07-25T01:06:56.851-04:002012-07-25T01:06:56.851-04:00crusadeRex:
“God is merciful, even to fools.
God ...crusadeRex:<br /><br />“God is merciful, even to fools.<br />God rewards the good and the loving.<br />The gains of a pious/righteous life are in the HERE and NOW. They obviously transcend, but I do not pretend to understand exactly how. Perhaps in the way different jellies produce different bees? Just a guess.”<br /><br />Yes, this is the Atheist’s wager, or at least one potential outcome of the wager. I understand perfectly. That is why I made the comparison. <br /><br />“You inserted the 'infinitely merciful' stuff in there. Not I.”<br /><br />No, classical theists insert infinitely merciful (or maximally merciful at least). God, according to classical theism, has attributes such as mercy in their maximal degree. If you don’t believe that then I suggest you are not a classical theist. <br /><br />“In my view you would have to live a righteous life, as defined BY GOD. Not Descartes, Marx, or Locke. Not by some 'golden rule'.<br />Get it?”<br /><br />Of course. Then the problem becomes which god. That is what is always left out of Pascal’s wager. <br /><br />“If your only fault was a lack of faith, but you otherwise lived well, THEN you would be given the chance to repent.<br />A person of faith who was weakened by sin may also be given a chance.<br />One or the other, or BOTH.”<br /><br />You are still describing the Atheist’s wager. You should go look it up.<br /><br />“Live an evil life AND deny God? Forget it.”<br /><br />Well, if you live a life of evil and the Abrahamic God is real then you can forget it whether you deny God or not. <br /><br />“Oblivion will be your reward.<br />'The second death'.<br />But don't worry about that, it's exactly what you want/expect anyway. No red guy with a pitchfork, no purgatory for you. No need for another run at it.<br />Nothing.”<br /><br />So you believe in annihilationism, ala Harold Camping. A minority view amongst Christians, but one I have seen before. I will keep that in mind for the future. <br /><br />“I know you would probably much prefer me to blast you with hell fire, as that could very well fit your stereotype of Christian thinking neatly.<br />Sorry.<br />It just isn't going to happen.”<br /><br />I honestly don’t care what your particular view of the afterlife is. So go ahead and think that I do care all you want.<br /><br />“BTW Trying to reverse Pascal's wager is futile.<br />You may want to read the original dialogues concerning that.”<br /><br />Pascal’s wager does not take account of all possible afterlife conditions. That is why Pascal’s wager is not a convincing conversion tactic.<br /><br />“This is just silly:<br />'In fact if you retain free will in the afterlife, and there is an infinite amount of time then eventually you would necessarily cause an affront to God. "<br /><br />Death is a catalyst.<br />That existence we call 'afterlife' is without/beyond time, not in an infinite stream of time.<br />It is at a point where beginning and end are a single moment. It is objective eternity, not a mathematical infinity. The latter is a model used in THIS existence.<br />So how does the 'eventually' in your proposition fit in? I doesn't.”<br /><br />Yes you are right, I spoke incorrectly. Many Christians view the afterlife as existing outside of time. But the question of whether or not we have free will in the afterlife and whether or not God can condemn us for poor behaviour in the afterlife is a serious question amongst classical theists (usually swept away by claiming that one <i>could</i> rebel against God in heaven but one <i>would</i> not after basking in God’s glory).<br /><br />“"Keep calm and carry on."<br />Wasn't that a sign outside the gas chambers at Treblinka?”<br /><br />No, it was an ad campaign of the monarchy to which you are a loyal subject. Nazis … Queen Elizabeth … what’s the difference?<br /><br />-LAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-87408281585750338862012-07-24T14:36:50.687-04:002012-07-24T14:36:50.687-04:00Is it possible for something to be morally wrong, ...<i>Is it possible for something to be morally wrong, even of all human beings thought it morally right?</i><br /><br />No. You lose.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-61668262171308626902012-07-23T19:05:38.813-04:002012-07-23T19:05:38.813-04:00@L
[I would also like to point out that there are...@L<br /><br />[I would also like to point out that there are plenty of philosophical traditions that beleive there is an absolute morality without the necessity of a god (the Platonic school is one).]<br /><br />Plato was very much a theist, and Neoplatonism was quite close to Christianity in much of its theology. I don't specifically know Plato's views on the source of moral law, but your implication that Plato was an atheist is wrong.mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-76196871315612912602012-07-23T19:02:16.067-04:002012-07-23T19:02:16.067-04:00There is a simple way to describe objective morali...There is a simple way to describe objective morality. It is the answer to this question:<br /><br />Is it possible for something to be morally wrong, even of all human beings thought it morally right?<br /><br />If it is possible, then morality is objective. If it is not possible, then morality is not objective. <br /><br />It seems self-evident that it is possible for everyone to be wrong about a moral question. Ergo, there must be objective morality-- moral law that exists independently of human opinion. <br /><br />If morality is objective, it seems plain to me that such transcendent intentionality requires God.mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-46051680041338097342012-07-23T18:37:12.530-04:002012-07-23T18:37:12.530-04:00"The denial of objective morality is indefens..."The denial of objective morality is indefensible. Such denial--the denial that torturing children is objectively wrong, that the Holocaust was objectively wrong, etc--is either a deep refusal to face reality, or, if honestly denied, a mental illness."<br />Well, at least you are keeping an open mind. Either I'm lying <i>or</i> I am mentally ill. I have options. <br /><br />I think the greater problem is that by objective you mean absolute and God-given whereas most people mean something else (you may recall getting in a tussle with oleg over this some time ago). Disregarding the circular argument of saying that God-given morality requires God, it is possible to have objective (by the common definition) morality without God.<br /><br />I would also like to point out that there are plenty of philosophical traditions that beleive there is an absolute morality without the necessity of a god (the Platonic school is one). So while you are concerned with this one aspect of the moral argument for God, whether or not there is absolute morality, there is a whole cavalry attacking your flank.<br /><br />-LAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-15906773046536779192012-07-23T18:12:59.803-04:002012-07-23T18:12:59.803-04:00L,
May I suggest you use another translator?
Try ...L,<br />May I suggest you use another translator? <br />Try google English to Atheist. <br /><br />You have completely misunderstood my point. <br />I will boil it down for you in a nice reductionist-friendly fashion:<br />God is merciful, even to fools. <br />God rewards the good and the loving. <br />The gains of a pious/righteous life are in the HERE and NOW. They obviously transcend, but I do not pretend to understand exactly how. Perhaps in the way different jellies produce different bees? Just a guess. <br />You inserted the 'infinitely merciful' stuff in there. Not I. <br /> <br />In my view you would have to live a righteous life, as defined BY GOD. Not Descartes, Marx, or Locke. Not by some 'golden rule'. <br />Get it? <br />If your only fault was a lack of faith, but you otherwise lived well, THEN you would be given the chance to repent. <br />A person of faith who was weakened by sin may also be given a chance. <br />One or the other, or BOTH. <br /> <br />Live an evil life AND deny God? Forget it.<br />You will be just as proud at that moment of judgement (death). <br />Oblivion will be your reward. <br />'The second death'. <br />But don't worry about that, it's exactly what you want/expect anyway. No red guy with a pitchfork, no purgatory for you. No need for another run at it. <br />Nothing. <br />Such is God's mercy for the Atheist. <br /><br />I know you would probably much prefer me to blast you with hell fire, as that could very well fit your stereotype of Christian thinking neatly. <br />Sorry. <br />It just isn't going to happen. <br /><br />BTW Trying to reverse Pascal's wager is futile. <br />You may want to read the original dialogues concerning that. <br /><br />This is just silly:<br />'In fact if you retain free will in the afterlife, and there is an infinite amount of time then eventually you would necessarily cause an affront to God. "<br /> <br />Death is a catalyst. <br />That existence we call 'afterlife' is without/beyond time, not in an infinite stream of time. <br />It is at a point where beginning and end are a single moment. It is objective eternity, not a mathematical infinity. The latter is a model used in THIS existence. <br />So how does the 'eventually' in your proposition fit in? I doesn't. <br /><br />"Keep calm and carry on."<br />Wasn't that a sign outside the gas chambers at Treblinka? <br /><br />"You should be careful Rex, you are beginning to sound like Dawkins."<br />More like a cross between James Earl Jones and Frank 'blue eyes' Sinatra with a 'classical' accent, actually. Maybe kind of like a young Chrisopher Plumber? <br />But Dawkins...no I would have to take up smoking three packs a day and be emasculated first.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-90640431455055740452012-07-23T17:17:57.588-04:002012-07-23T17:17:57.588-04:00I tell you what I believe: You have NO idea what d...I tell you what I believe: You have NO idea what deer think about their origins or the forces of nature.<br /> <br />Your comment is as ridiculous as saying hamsters are Buddhists because of some weird correlative data (how they sit), or that Lemmings are Jihadist Muslims waging war against infidel fish because they hurl themselves from cliffs. <br />If I am moron, you must be a retarded sea cucumber (an atheist one, that is).<br />LMAO!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-54897914684067821822012-07-23T12:08:12.415-04:002012-07-23T12:08:12.415-04:00Crusader, I think it’s safe to say that Deer don’t...Crusader, I think it’s safe to say that Deer don’t believe in God or Gods. Do you really think deer might be religious? If that’s the only you could come up with to respond to the points I’ve made, you really are a moron.<br /><br />-KWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-21759093016519704172012-07-23T12:05:46.173-04:002012-07-23T12:05:46.173-04:00A good answer. Romans Chapter 7 was the only thing...A good answer. Romans Chapter 7 was the only thing that kept me from becoming a full fledged atheist from the ages of 17 to 23. But then I realized something. Taking WLC's moral argument for God:<br /><br />If there is no God, then objective moral values cannot exist.<br />Objective moral values do exist. <br />Therefore God exists (formally there is not no God).<br /><br />There are a number of errors in the premises of this argument, but my problem was mainly with the existence of objective morality (and by objective here I mean absolute God given morality). How are we to tell the difference between objective morality and the appearance of objective morality? We run into this sort of problem in the world of cognitive illusions. Once I came to the conclusion that it was possible for humans to have either evolved or constructed a morality that gave the appearance of objectivity, this argument had no weight with me. <br /><br />Thank you for sharing.<br /><br />-LAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-49647969780679840082012-07-23T11:25:00.834-04:002012-07-23T11:25:00.834-04:00CrusadeRex:
This is basically the Atheist's W...CrusadeRex:<br /><br />This is basically the Atheist's Wager. If there is no God, then nothing is to be gained by following a religious life. If there is a God who values righteous behaviour and is infinitely merciful, then nothing is to be gained by following a religious life if you have righteous behavior. If there is a God who values righteous behaviour but is not infinitely merciful, then nothing is gained by following a religious life because such a capricious God may choose to condemn you to hell anyway. In fact if you retain free will in the afterlife, and there is an infinite amount of time then eventually you would necessarily cause an affront to God. So the best bet is to ignore religion, be kind to others and hope for the best. Keep calm and carry on.<br /><br />You should be careful Rex, you are beginning to sound like Dawkins.<br /><br />-LAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-71681848493224602852012-07-23T11:07:29.471-04:002012-07-23T11:07:29.471-04:00The law of double effect seems to fall apart if yo...The law of double effect seems to fall apart if you set up a situation in which you know evil will occurr. You don't need to be omniscient to know that some people will do evil. It's like forcing your friends to play Russian roulette and then when somebody does die saying, "hey bad things will happen when you play this game, but everybody had lots of fun so that makes it okay." It's worse if God is omniscient, because he knows a priori which people will do evil. <br /><br />I'm just teasing. Of course it looks like a utilitarian argument, but it really isn't. Just like God's nature looks like it violates the principle of sufficient reason but it really doesn't. Just like the false dilemma response to Euthyphro's dillema looks like an evasion, but it really isn't. Just like the necessary existence of God looks like it is a brute force fact of the universe, but it really isn't. Just like God's possession of conflicting attributes to the maximal degree looks like a contradiction, but it really isn't. Etc., etc., etc.<br /><br />I believe you have answers to criticisms of your theology Michael. I just don't find them very satisfying.<br /><br />-LAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-13040138936465424432012-07-23T09:52:10.317-04:002012-07-23T09:52:10.317-04:00KW,
Glad to know you can commune with the deer.
...KW, <br />Glad to know you can commune with the deer. <br />Did 'science' channel this information about deer being atheists to you? I know you understand and talk to 'science', so did come to you in an ecstasy, or perhaps while ON ecstasy? <br />Do you know that a Muslim would disagree. <br />He would tell you the deer is a MUSLIM! <br />What is a Christian to do? Is the deer an atheist, as the atheists tells us? Or does he submit to Allah, as the Muslim tells us? <br />Both of you sound ridiculous. <br />A deer just experiences. It is. It understands it's life instinctively, and it understands death is simply part of that cycle. This is evident in the behaviour of deer. <br />Suggesting it is a Nihilist, Atheist, or of a specific type of Theist is a CRACKPOT suggestion. <br />At least the Muslim has a colourful explanation for his belief, I suppose. Yours? Completely hilarious. <br />Thanks for the entertainment once again, KW<br />Who knew dogma could be such a crack up!<br />A deer is an atheist, eh?<br />then perhaps that is why their civilization excels those of the theistic world, and their philosophy is so well known and profound. <br />Just ask a wolf (they must be theistic transcendentalist with a gnostic leaning?)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-17769500637366853472012-07-23T08:43:02.411-04:002012-07-23T08:43:02.411-04:00I didn't plunder because God's law was in ...I didn't plunder because God's law was in my heart, and I obeyed Him, even while I denied His existence.<br /><br />I was too stupid to understand what I was doing.<br /><br />Later I did understand, and became a Christian.mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-56392943817675667592012-07-23T07:49:13.082-04:002012-07-23T07:49:13.082-04:00I assure you I read the post. In fact what you sai...I assure you I read the post. In fact what you said was essential to my comment. I apologize for being unclear. Let me try again.<br /><br />You make the following claim:<br /><br />Atheism leads to belief X.<br />If one has belief X, they act in manner Y.<br />Atheists don't act in manner Y. <br />Therefore atheists don't genuinely believe X.<br /><br />My comment was on what you think this means. It could mean that atheists really do jump for joy at such a tragedy and just hide it well (they do act in manner Y). If you believe that then there is no point in further discussion. Or it could be that atheists don't think through where atheism leads. This is the straw man you are attacking, assuming that no atheist has conceived of this problem. It is naive. It would be like me saying no theist has an answer to the problem of evil while only referring to Easter Catholics, who are only nominally Catholic.<br /><br />The other possibillity is that your initial premise is wrong, as I believe to be the case. This is why I want to know how you thought when you were an atheist. Why didn't you pillage, plunder, or committ nihilistic suicide? I think your answer would be illuminating.<br /><br />-LAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-43334206555374036932012-07-23T03:44:44.706-04:002012-07-23T03:44:44.706-04:00Michael,
Gun control works. Australia is a simil...Michael,<br /><br />Gun control works. Australia is a similar country to America. Largely settled from Europe. We started out as a penal colony, so our starting stock wasn't particularly good.<br /><br />If Australians were killing and wounding with guns at the same rate as America, we'd be at around 7,000 a year. We're nowhere near it, because we've got very strict controls. And our murder rate is also very low.<br /><br />You still haven't answered why the American churches couldn't do something useful for a change, and campaign for gun control. It isn't something that politicians are capable of doing, because it would take longer than a politician would be willing to spend (no further than the next election).<br /><br />The second amendment isn't an insurmountable problem. It can be repealed, just as the amendment for Prohibition was.<br /><br />Gun control requires someone with patience and energy to push through. The churches, with their supposed moral authority, would be ideal. And they'd get a lot of secular support too.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-53230816913965764112012-07-22T21:56:21.902-04:002012-07-22T21:56:21.902-04:00America's gun controls are as reliable as a si...America's gun controls are as reliable as a sieve. Washington, DC, might have strict gun laws, but it is right next to Maryland and (especially) Virginia were the laws are pretty lax. The easy availability of guns makes it easy to run around the laws.oleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11644793385433232819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-782736614112969922012-07-22T21:18:23.515-04:002012-07-22T21:18:23.515-04:00America has a lot of gun control. Show me evidence...America has a lot of gun control. Show me evidence that it works.mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-26767633481391966412012-07-22T21:15:52.093-04:002012-07-22T21:15:52.093-04:00Michael,
So why is America such an outlier in bot...Michael,<br /><br />So why is America such an outlier in both ownership of guns and gun deaths? Going on your logic, because of America's gun ownership rate, it should have the lowest rate of gun deaths amongst comparable developed countries. But it doesn't. It has the highest.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-3444834611575144702012-07-22T20:58:24.824-04:002012-07-22T20:58:24.824-04:00Natural selection could favor the individuals with...Natural selection could favor the individuals with the genes for a louder alarm call, or some other physical or behavioral change that enhances cooperation. The genes for this change would likely be found in a group of related individuals enhancing the reproductive success of the group. It’s still about differential reproduction, but it should be obvious that in most cases reproductive success of an individual in a population that cares for its members will be greater than in a population that doesn’t. <br /><br />It’s also obviously true, that among humans we care more for people the more closely they are related to us. The closer to home a tragedy strikes the more affected we are by it. If a pretty white good little Christian girl goes missing she may very well get as much media attention as a famine in Africa. The tragedy in Colorado hits home because that could be us. It’s terrifying because it represents the ultimate breakdown of the cooperation we all count on, theist and atheist alike, for our very survival and reproductive success.<br /><br />Cooperation and competition go hand-in-hand in both evolution and human society. There are always both, and neither will ever disappear because some cheating will always be advantageous in a population of cooperators, and some cooperation will always be advantageous in a population of cheaters.<br /><br />If it seems like evolution always has an answer it’s because it does. <br /><br />-KWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-61341892554537662772012-07-22T20:22:24.663-04:002012-07-22T20:22:24.663-04:00Yes, imagine that! I study systems with competing ...Yes, imagine that! I study systems with competing interactions for a living. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrofluid" rel="nofollow">Ferrofluids</a> are a fascinating example of that. The fluid attracts itself sometimes and sometimes repels. <br /><br />And you thought personal incredulity was a good argument? What a joke!oleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11644793385433232819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-36623540102884905572012-07-22T19:34:59.372-04:002012-07-22T19:34:59.372-04:00@KW:
But in the Darwinian storybook, adaptations ...@KW:<br /><br />But in the Darwinian storybook, adaptations arise by natural selection, which is competitive differential reproduction. And adaptations arise by cooperation. <br /><br />You assert that Darwinism predicts both competition and cooperation. <br /><br />I love theories that predict mutually exclusive processes.mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-90907658077953378482012-07-22T19:27:42.530-04:002012-07-22T19:27:42.530-04:00bach:
There are two problems with gun control in ...bach:<br /><br />There are two problems with gun control in the US.<br /><br />1) The Second Amendment, which clearly guarantees the right to the citizenry to keep and bear arms. <br /><br />2) Gun control doesn't work. There is no consistent correlation between gun control and reduction in gun crime, either in the US or elsewhere. The most stringent gun control laws in the US are often where the gun violence is worst. The cause and effect relationship can be argued, but the most reasonable conclusion is that gun control doesn't work. <br /><br />Gun control has two effects: <br /><br />1) it makes it marginally more difficult for bad guys to get guns. But bad guys are bad because they kill people, and it's difficult to imagine that someone disposed to murder is going to be stopped by laws regulating gun ownership.<br /><br />2) It makes gun ownership much harder if not impossible for law-abiding victims. This has the effect of guaranteeing gun-using bad guys a large crop of unarmed victims. <br /><br />This encourages gun crime, which has been borne out by many studies that show that concealed-and-carry laws reduce gun crime.mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-34578471746872723442012-07-22T19:01:14.876-04:002012-07-22T19:01:14.876-04:00Deer aren’t religious, and you could say their lac...Deer aren’t religious, and you could say their lack of belief in God or gods makes them atheist. Yet they don’t fail to sound the alarm and then rejoice when a fellow falls to a predator. The deer are preprogrammed by evolution to give a warning call that helps their neighbors because their neighbors share the genes to give a warning call that may one day save them. The deer aren’t thinking about the philosophical issues of cooperation or it’s consistence or inconsistency with this or that god, their doing what proves to aid their own survival.<br /><br />A species that wantonly celebrates the destruction of its own kind isn’t a species that’s likely to be around a long time. Schools of fish, flocks of birds, herds of herbivores, lions sharing a kill, ants maintaining a colony, and on and on, we see animals cooperating for their mutual survival. Cooperative behavior in species is ubiquitous. To think that Darwinism somehow demands that the opposite is true is duhr de duhr de duhr Stupid.<br /><br />-KWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com