MonDie

It looks like you committed the equivocation fallacy with the word "us," but I cannot say because I don't know Schopenhauer's metaphysics. I have a different view. Unlike more primitive impulses, altruistic impulses aren't persistent. Thus wisely spent altruism is used to structure the life around ethical behavior such that ethical behavior is in accordance with the otherwise ignoble impulses.

I challenge the idea that "God" ever will be defined in an agreed upon way. Spinoza believed in something he called God, yet... By the way, I'm sorry if I, in part, led immortal to say you were biased. I was rude in saying/assuming you would like, specifically, the religion & prejudice studies showing religious people are generally more prejudiced. Of course, I only made the assumption because I myself found those studies pleasing.

"I'm willing to bet that none of the people reading this sentence [will] spot the grammatical error in it." That's not the place for an infinitive verb. I tried it one more time as I walked down the bike path today. I have a good memory for words, which may be because I used to compulsively count the number of syllables in every sentence. Also, "Supreme beings are ____." didn't convey the question. I should have done something like "Yahweh and Vishnu are ____."

Darn it! http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Law%20of%20Conservation%20of%20Happiness

"I'm sorry I punched you in the face, but the law of conservation of happiness states that your pain equals my pleasure."

His motivations do not make his deeds any less good. Plus, if the good deeds give him self-respect, that's a good thing too. I don't see the problem. If the gift is one that keeps on giving, that's even better. There is no law of conservation of happiness.

EDIT: You are only thinking about the happiness of that one individual, but everyone affects other people too. Think about it this way. The quadriplegic may not be able to reach maximal sexual fulfillment, but that just means he shouldn't focus on sexual fulfillment. He could put his effort elsewhere instead. If he is so restricted that no selfish pursuit is worth his time, he could try to help others instead. If he lives in an affluent nation, his potential to do good is massive. So, although his existence might not be preferable from a selfish perspective, it is preferable from a collective perspective. Plus, the realization that his existence is justified should relieve any depression. It might be hasty to think the mind becomes no-thing (or no-mind) when we die. Although certain mental processes (e.g. memory, sensory perception) are emergent properties of a working brain, there could be some fundamental aspect of mind that persists in the decomposed matter. So it might be sufficient to think of nonexistence as an absense of mental capacities. If that's true, then sleep can be thought of as a semi-dead state because certain mental processes seem to stop when we sleep. Yes, sleep involves biologically important brain functioning. However, it all seems to take place outside of the conscious mind. 99% of people go to sleep not anticipating dreams and wake up not remembering them.

Why do you want my personal viewpoint? What use would it be to anyone else? I like to communicate ideas. I feel proud when I live up to my ideals. I've felt two satisfying types of love. That's about it. I can't compare existence to nonexistence. When I try to, I actually end up comparing exertion to rest. Maybe it's because I think sleep, a state of rest, is comparable to mental nonexistence. Anyway, I'm tired, so it sounds pretty good right about now. Good night. I'll reexist in the morning.

I never read Jung because everything he says looks like outlandish wishful thinking.

Hammers are not designed to kill. However, they are designed to hammer, and one would kill (intentionally or not) with a hammer by way of hammering. Thus we could not make a safe hammer without totally removing its original purpose. The problems: (1) I could also hammer someone with a lamp or a two-by-four. Shooting is specific to guns. (2) Hammering has wider application than shooting. These also apply to the pill bottle analogy. (1) Houses contain tons of things that could poison children. Pills are not unique in this respect. (2) Pills can treat/cure disease and relieve pain. Guns do neither. Let's try this for the gun and its corresponding function, shooting. (1) Nothing else closely approximates how the gun kills. (2) You can shoot a person to defend yourself. This has been discussed already. When someone breaks into your home or comes to mug you, they probably don't want to kill you. However, they're more likely to kill you if they realize you have a gun. Nonetheless, there are premeditating murderers, so shooting does have beneficial applications, but the extent of this is highly questionable. The lawnmower doesn't enter this format at all. Unless we're actually mowing people down, lawnmower deaths have almost no relationship to the intended function. Feel free to modify this, but, for ease of access, distinguish original content from modifications. Organization promotes long-term memory, and I think more organization will help this conversation progress.

Here you go. Read the article's discription of the first three noble truths. Of course, everything the Buddha supposedly said is iffy. I also happened upon this. That's more interesting. It has a better, less masochistic ring to it. I spent over a year of my childhood studying Buddhism. Did I never learn this, or did I simply find it uninteresting?

The first two are easily avoidable. Shame - Think positive thoughts. Frustration - Don't pine over things you will not get. What you are saying is basically what the Buddha said. Life is suffering because desire leads to suffering, extinction (nirvana) is better. The Buddha was wrong.

I don't know what sort of apparatus you are talking about, but I recently learned about the photoelectric effect. Photoelectric Effect - many metals emit electrons when light (electromagnetic radiation) is shined on them. The photoelectric effect is an instance where electromagnetic radiation behaves like a particle (called "photon") rather than a wave. Waves vary in both frequency and amplitude. However, the energy (E) carried by each individual photon of a wave is determined by the wave's frequency (υ), not its amplitude. E = hυ (h is planck's constant) For the photoelectric effect to occur, each individual photon must have enough energy to dislodge an electron, thus the wave must have a high enough frequency. However, different metals have different threshold frequencies.

Well, it appears that the capital-G is not enough. I don't know whether the first quote is one that Einstein spoke or wrote, but the G was capitalized by whomever wrote/typed it. I think just as much would have been said with a lowercase "g", for the lowercase letter would not have led us to wonder whether he has more gods. Clearly, he's talking about one god, no more, no less. However, I would acknowledge an exception if "Spinoza's God" is the proper name. Beyond that, I see no good reason for it. I doubt he held a firm belief in capitalizing unnecessarily!

There isn't one? I thought the use of "that" might be improper, but sure enough, "that" can be a conjunction.

Adobe Flash is crashing. I'm going URL.

You assumed too much. The intended point was that the development of language depends on differentiation. It does offend me when people give their pagan gods capital Gs. It's absolutely repugnant! God is God is God! Feel free to use it stylistically. By "fundamental", I mean the rule has broader scope. For example, you generally should follow verbs with the objective form (me/her/him/them), not the nominative form (I/she/he/they). This rule has broad scope, but there used to be a reverse rule specifically for forms of the verb to be. You had to say, "It is she." instead of "It is her" or "It wasn't I!" instead of "It wasn't me!" However, this small rule was gradually overtaken by the predominant rule, and modern linguists often view both forms as correct.

This looks like what you want. Spermatogenesis - Hormonal Control If the article is correct, spermatogenesis begins with the differentiation of spermatogonia into primary spermatocytes, and this doesn't happen until puberty. There's not a lot of citations, so you may have to use Google to check the info.

I don't see why the primary spermatocytes would need to be present at all before puberty. Males continuously form new primary spermatocytes from the spermatogonia. Anyway, I'll see what I can find.

Homonyms are inevitable, but we should prevent their appearance where they'll become problematic. If every word was a homonym to every other word, we wouldn't have language at all. If it's a superficial convention, then it's one we should avoid. If it's based on fundamental rules of grammar, I will follow the rules.

Then how can you defend this claim?

No, the definition says this being is the most superior, the only creator. The presence of another God would demote both beings to god status. You might have a point. For example, "The Simpsons" refers to multiple characters, each of which could be considered a Simpson. However, the sense of "Simspons" doesn't exclude the possibility of multiple Simpsons, whereas the sense of "God" does, and does so quite explicitly. I would like to contest that law. I don't like it when "God" can mean two different things. Communication is easier when phrases like "one god" imply that no other gods have entered the picture. Compare: The Christian God is God. No, I'm not saying that their ideas about God are accurate. I'm simply stating the name given to their conception of God, God. Monodeists also believe in God, but they usually don't name it God. The Christian god is God. [snip] Monodeists also believe in one god, but they usually don't name it God.

There is an older thread on this subject. Although I appreciate the posts of LimbicLoser, I doubted that I would spark fresh discussion by posting there, ahead of LimbicLoser's series of posts. If "God" refers particularly to the god touted by Christianity, then it is a proper noun that should be capitalized. However, dictionary.com says "God" refers to "the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe." This definition gives the word a less focused sense, but it still seems to grant the word proper noun status for two reasons: there can only be one supreme being because "supreme" is a superlative. its use of the word "the" implies that God is the only "creator and ruler of the universe". However, this looser sense encompasses multiple referents (e.g. Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu, etc.). This makes it possible to pluralize "God", as shown. Jews and Vaishnavas worship the Gods Yahweh and Vishnu, respectively.That capital G "God" doesn't look correct in that sentence. However, I could find myself in a similar bind with other proper nouns. "Yoshi" is a proper noun because it refers to a particular videogame character, but I might pluralize the word if I saw two Yoshis on the television screen. In another example: although Benjamin Franklin refers to one person, he could be in two places at once if he could time travel. Of course, "Yoshi" and "God" are words that might only refer to abstract things, whereas "Benjamin Franklin" refers to a concrete thing. This is a distinction touched upon by LimbicLoser. What do you think about capitalizing "God" when it has the looser sense? I think we shouldn't capitalize a word with such a loose sense, but I'm willing to change my position. I have capitalized the looser sense "God" before, but I'm reconsidering.

How do you recognize whether or not someone is enlightened? I think meditation would be more productive than studying scriptural texts, so I will support you at least that far.

Here's where the wsj used the image, which actually came from fbi.gov. As you can see, the FBI now has April's number, and it has nearly returned to normal. NOTE: Before the edit, I thought the author intentionally excluded the April cloumn to decieve us. Also, it's actually the number of background checks, which is assumed to reflect the number of sales. We might as well carry through with gun law reforms since we have already gotten everyone riled up. It would be quite a dissapointment if gun sales were spiked for nothing.