questionposter

Let's see your craig's list account. If I don't see it, I can't buy it. Now that I think about it, dragon-like creatures seem possible. On Earth there's been both large reptiles and organisms that have evolved from large reptiles to fly. There's unimaginable amounts of space and matter, and with all the possibilities really any type of life is possible. Well so is the notion of god. It's another point of view that differs from yours and goes against one of your most held beliefs. That's not teaching it as science, that's teaching it because they feel their values are not being fairly viewed upon, but they don't objectively view their own values. No, just specifically your religious one. If god wants free-will, they god could logically want people to live out their life how they choose. I think originally the psychopathic god was meant to scare people into being more kind to each other, but regardless time has went on and people still have different views about god. It just seems like your purposely not trying to see what it is like to be a religious person. Many people find it fulfilling in some way. Provide a logical correlation that proves that second clause, unless it is merely an opinion. Because without religion, some people don't have a reason to. I personally would like the first one, but I cannot speak for everyone. There are people who would like religion to be more incorporated into laws.

Well, some labs try to preserve them, and even pathogens like Polio, although mainly in case someone else tries to use it as bio-warfare. You could argue that for anyone who has ever died. Define what you mean by "level". And so what if they aren't? I don't think we really have the capability to confirm that, unless you were a mosquito and remembered all of it. Science can't really say what consciousness is, and "instincts" merely effect consciousness, so if instincts and chemicals like aggression and fear are there, what are they effecting if not some type of perception? I think it is more logical to look at it in terms of will-power rather than the existence of consciousness itself, but I suppose we don't know exactly what will-power is either. Most biologists don't actually make those types of assumptions, they merely experiment on things for the sake of science, not because of ethical issues. And for the robot, it would depend. I wouldn't really care about a hand-held calculator, but I couldn't really tell if something like a complex AI was actually conscious in any way, I would be careful about it. I still don't know and science doesn't know enough about what consciousness and what perception actually is, so it would depend. Not only that, but emotions are just chemicals, so why do you think they matter? Wouldn't the fact that something is a living thing matter more than if it happened to be adapted to release chemicals in response to something or not? So what if they aren't on the same "level" as humans? To the universe humans still don't matter any more than any "lower level" thing.

Is there a specific place on there you want me to look? Even in the event that there are people who say that, those people are likely religious extremists and I would say they do not represent the over 3/4 of the population of Earth that is religious.

It's not about being intelligent, there literally is a very small chance if their existence in your basement. Well not on Earth, but recently the pope said that not even he cannot place limits on the creativity of god, and considering all mutations on this planet were completely random, all we can really say for certain is we have not observed one on Earth. But this whole "should" thing is just your point of view, it's just a point of view, and that's why it isn't scientific law and why others have other views. Humans are a member of the animal kingdom. They have cell membranes, vertebra, 4 limbs, etc. Perhaps they are saying it should be taught in schools, but I haven't heard anyone saying it should be taught as a science. Why have it the first place? Aside from there being different views on why god does what it does, technically all these things are what living things bring upon themselves, and since it seems in many religions that the main deity does not want to control free-will, these things could happen because free-will prevails. I don't see how some survey can be more evidence than the religious people themselves, since religious people are the ones that follow religions. Or are you going to call random religious people you've never met liars? Just go talk to religious people yourself, there's many many many many different views, and many many many many different shapes between anti-religious and orthodox. And again, Martin Luther King Jr., Newton, Lincoln, Churchill, Truman, Obama, Caesar Chavez, the list goes on. They are all mono-theists who many people consider to be good, but they all obviously don't believe in a hateful Christian god. Christian church did in fact at one point proclaim science as the language of the devil, but because your seeming prejudices about religious people are more often wrong, that view has changed and many religious people do not actually believe it. Obviously you looked into the religion as you have read the bible and I think quoted some things from it, but it seems you lack effort to understand the different views and how religious people actually view god. Put to their point of reference, just as you think it is the "right" thing to do to not kill people, they think it is the "right" thing to do to force their religion upon others. I have had actual people advocate religion to me. And do you know what they said? They didn't said "Join us or you will go to hell", the most recent one was an African American couple in Wisconsin who said "hello sir, I'm with the Christian church and I just wanted to invite you to an Easter dinner we are having...". Well that's still a personal belief. Why not make a religion where your not allowed to kill people under any circumstance?

If you are religious you are either a member of a religious order or you choose to share a large amount of the same beliefs as a certain doctrine or are simply devout to certain moral principals. I should rephrase to say you don't advocate a society that revolves around violence or that you don't think we actually should go on witch-hunts. An interesting interpretation, but even good people have to lie sometimes in order to protect something. Would you say it's the devil talking if I lied to a hitman who wanted to kill the Dahli-Llama for political reasons and told him the wrong location? Or even if I just lied to protect any innocent person, not necessarily a peaceful person like him? I can't remember his name, but there was a person who did a documentary about trying to go a year with living every part of his life under the bible and orthodox Christianity, and that was a weird rule he had to follow. I don't know how credible this is, but there's these rules too http://biblebabble.c...aw.com/laws.htm Though I don't think Jesus actually said all gay people should die.

I thought you merely didn't see evidence in the existence of god... It is still a logical conclusion that if god can do anything then he can make things happen which we do not have the knowledge to reproduce. Also, there is still a .000000000000000000000000000000001 chance those dragons are actually there, but there is a greater chance of them being there without placing specific restrictions on their existence. But if god exists and wants you to do things, why is it broken to do what he says? Because that is the way an orthodox looks at it. Just out of curiosity, what if an animal believes it needs to kill a human in order to survive? No one is saying religion should be taught as a science. You said that those rights should exist, but can you provide logical evidence for "why"? I already said: axiom: god can do anything conclusion, god can do anything --> therefore god can fit every species on a boat My evidence is religious people themselves. If you talked to many religious people as I have, you would see that they in fact have their own views of god, and there is also plenty of evidence to support that Newton believed god was logical, and I even posted a link, and it's even taught in schools that the Middle-Easter religious cultures did not hate science as Christianity in the same time period did and therefore many religious scholars in the Middle-East advanced science and mathematics which I also posted a link too. Do you really think Martin Luther King, or Winston Churchill, or Truman, Newton, etc. were that bad of people? They believed in mono-theism, but as I have already stated, there are more views about god than just some ancient scripture. First off, go ask a history major about how religious cultures have advanced science, because that's how I know. Secondly, go ask a psych major how people's environments shape them, that's how I know. Third, look at what many religions have in common and you will see how they are inspired from real human experience. Forth, go ask a psych major again how people can relate ideas to important events in their life, as well as wanting to think their loved-ones are still alive in some way, I didn't need to ask a psych major about that, but I had discussed it with one. The issue between atheists and religious people seems to be communication. Atheists seem to in general think that many religious people blindly follow illogical conclusions, while many religious people think that many atheists do not have as high of a regard for morals and that atheists hate religious people. Even when people did blindly follow it, we did not have the scientific understanding of the universe we have now, and most could not read, I can't say I blame them for beveling in an explanation for everything.

Most scientists don't say people believing in god is illogical. Science is meant to be inherently separate from religion and not interact with religion at all. I also do not see the evidence for a universal consciousness, but it is true that the universe contains beings of consciousness.

Now that I think about it, it is probably possible to have a very large system act as one large organism, but it seems likely the surface area it would have to cover could only be something like a very small moon, as after a certain point reaction time delay will become too great for cohesive processes. There's also the issue of why we haven't discovered this virus and why we don't have an immune response to it or why we wouldn't have developed a resistance to it. There is also little evidence to support the notion that humans can consciously respond to magnetic fields waves.

This seems completely contrary to your argumentation and the arguments of others as well. Could you have changed your mind? Or took the mod note very seriously? How "ok" it is is relative. Personally, I don't find it ok, and many others do not as well, however this is not a universal view, as there are even cannibalistic tribes who are actually pretty decent people, but they just eat people if they think they're going to bring doom upon their village. Not only that, but significance also varies. While you may consider it ok to kill a fly, Buddhists don't. Are you sure? Because my arguments were not that there is much evidence for god, yet you opposed me repeatedly despite that most of my posts were actually that god can be logical and that many modern religious people are not completely by the book and that there are views that have changed over time as well as circumstances people had to follow or they would be killed, as well as that there are in fact some good things that can come from religion.

There does seem to be many unconfirmed benefits of natural and organic products, but those products have a harder time being produced on a larger scale to feed the amount of people there are, so instead plants are genetically modified to grow faster and in harsher environments and sprayed with chemicals to stop bugs from eating them before harvest, which isn't really bad for you at all, your stomach acid will destroy the genes either way or they will remain inside the indigestible cell walls if your that concerned, and the effects of pesticides I don't think have been confirmed to be carcinogenic, more research I suppose should be done on it.

You say everyone has the right, yet it still get's broken anyway, regardless of whatever personal beliefs you have. Besides, I thought one of the main arguments against religion was that it is often illogical, but stating a belief is illogical without a direct contradiction seems illogical without a way to quantify logic and actually measure scales of logicality. So either there is a universal unit of logic which we haven't discovered, or how logical something is, is merely relative.

Ok, if I ask a question and you say it's false, I assumed it was false and then built off of what couldn't be true and could only be true based off of it being false. It's only known from one frame of reference, and that frame of reference didn't actually measure the photon, there was just a neutron that decayed or something. If it was actually known, wouldn't it collapse to a finite point and not be delocalized at all? I could have swore you knew how it worked. Entanglement. It happens instantaneously, but light doesn't travel between any two distances for it to happen. Why? Because it's a correlation of probability (which wavelength effects), and not a causation, which I thought you said yourself in another topic. The same goes for light, it also has probability, and a radio wave is more likely to be measured over a larger distance than a gamma ray. So, if there was no limit to the size of the probability of a photon being measured, it would extend infinitely and all photons would be measured instantaneously, but since that doesn't work that way it means there has to be finite parameters governmening how the probability of a photon spreads out, and one of these things I thought was wavelength, but since the wavelength before measurement is undetermined and wavelength should be relative anyway, there must be some other thing that governs the parameters while a photon is unmeasured otherwise we would measure the photon instantaneously.

Logically, if a society wants money to be put into taking care of each other, it has to come from somewhere in the form of either money or the energy to accomplish the tasks themselves. If a majority of people are willing to pay for it, it should be fine. We are already sacrificing certain freedoms by being in a government, but the sacrifice in turn gives us security. The only problem is when officials abuse the deciding how the sacrifice should be made.

But that view obviously isn't universal, that is your personal scale of should happen. Theoretically, logic should be logic no matter what, so why do people find the same thing more or less logical?

The way I see it, the emotions are merely conscious interpretations of chemicals, or not even interpretations, just something you try to make sense of. You wouldn't feel anger or love without the chemical for it, and you wouldn't feel pain without nerve cells. And with cows deserving to die, that's exactly my point. There is no particular view that is wrong, but neither is there an actual logical correlation to those views and reality which is why no view is wrong or right. There is no right or wrong with "wanting", but there is a logical fallacy with building off of it to use logic and say "a chemical is released, therefore a species deserves to be wiped out". If you really want to live in a world where the fate of entire species is merely decided by "I don't like them, so they should die", you can do that if you want, but if the human race truly wants to live in a world with every species being able to live and most of life thriving, even if the view is not correct or incorrect, then the extra energy needs to be put into shaping the global environment that way, and I don't think the mosquitoes or the alligators or the malaria or the dolphins or the birds or the fish are going to do it, so that only leaves us to do it if we actually want to follow through with it.

I don't know if I agree, there isn't really a way to quantify logic, so how can you actually conclude that something is "more" logical without a biased opinion?

So let me get this straight: You think a wave is a classical particle? No one is saying quantum particles are classical particles. Just because your incapable of comprehending it doesn't mean it's wrong. Yes it is a system, one that deals with much of the same mathematics that waves use. What's your point? Your the only one that has even used the word "mystery" on this entire topic. I don't think there's anything strange about a quantum particle being acting like a wave, you do.

It's not that they "should", it's that otherwise they don't have any real meaning otherwise, they have no real ground or actual basis to be acted upon.

Just because something is logical doesn't mean it's objective. If you make an ethical statement, it should have logic to back it up otherwise it is meaningless. Without logic, ethics is just a random spout of words that were the result of interpretations of the feelings perceived by the release of chemicals and nothing more.

The only things that really require faith are axioms, but axioms can still have logic built off of them and can still be used to make contradictory conclusions. Faith also does not substitute a logical sequence of steps.

I don't think I refused to do any of those things because those were never an issue in the first place. I never said anyone's view was wrong did I? No, I merely pointed out what they translate to or what effects a particular system like that would have. Besides, it is possible to be ethical without considering emotions and furthermore they are just chemicals, that's why it isn't wise to just take your emotions as laws of the universe. Because from an objective point of view neither mosquitoes nor humans would matter more, logically whatever one deserved the other would deserve. That's it. In fact, why should the entire fate of a species be decided on emotion? Can you logically draw a correlation between emotion and ethical action? Logically, why does something have to be done just because of your emotions?

If I can aim so well that I can destroy cancer, I'm pretty sure I can hit a person, that's the point, I never specified how far away they were, I was thinking they were rather close. How well a beam is focused effects it's accuracy, and you said aiming gamma-rays wasn't accurate. Because you didn't answer my question. Wavelength means nothing before measurement, there is no possible way to tell what the wavelength is before you measure a photon. IF a photon had no parameters to the 3 dimensional space it occupied before measurement, we would just see random photons being measured everywhere. We'd see photon from billions of light years away and measure them right in-front of us while the photons from the objects in-front of us might be measured by somethign else millions of light years away.

But the problem is, why do we objectively deserve to live over them, especially considering they aren't actually making the human race extinct? The human race is just another species in a perhaps infinite universe, the universe would keep going regardless of if we got wiped out. If we do wipe them out just because we don't like them, why is it not logical for something to wipe us out just because they don't like us? Also viruses aren't actually living things, they are much smaller than bacteria and consist mainly of protein wrapped DNA.

Objectively, Eugenics isn't ultimately necessarily because diversity can be good and regardless of whatever may be optimal, we can still decide to do something else because we don't want to be animals who's sole purpose is to blindly believe evolution is some mystical force we have to bow down to.

Brain power isn't completely inherited. I can't really find a good source, I see numbers as high as 80% inherited to less than 1%. Anyway, it shouldn't really matter, there are mentally retarded people who have had perfectly normal kids, and it's not like the entire population is becoming mentally retarded. There's even potentially treatments for it if research goes well. Not only that but a less smart person can do anything anything a smarter person can do but they will have to expend more energy or conscious effort.