rkbabang

I've said many times that if I believed that the god of the bible existed that I'd be his sworn enemy. Sure he could kill me and torture me for all eternity, but that would just be further proof of my moral superiority to that tyrannical monster. I've never gotten the people who worship god, because they are afraid of hell. I don't worship power, I detest it.

In my opinion it is the non-beleivers who understand how little we really know and are humbled by it. It is the believers who think they have all the answers and understand the universe and arrogantly refuse to admit that they really don't know. Because to a believer they think they DO know where the universe came from and even more arrogantly they think they understand not only what created the universe, but why. It is the height of arrogance to think that you KNOW that a supreme being exists and that you KNOW what he wants. You don't know, because no one does. How is it that when we tell people to stop claiming to know things they don't know, that we are suddenly the arrogant ones? This would be like if a scientist claimed to know exactly how many inhabited worlds there were in the entire universe. Other scientists would tell him that he needs to show his evidence or stop claiming to know things he doesn't know, and when he refuses to show his evidence they would dismiss him. They are not being arrogant for dismissing him, he is being arrogant for not proving his claim, yet claiming to know that it is true. If he was like some on this thread he was then turn around and say "You arrogant bastards. You can't prove me wrong, can you? " When all the time it is he who is the arrogant one who lacks humility.

Moore, I think that (and some other things people have been writing) are a bit of a stretch. I'm a huge fan of Rothbard and Mises. I'm a fan of gold and have about 5% of my portfolio in gold just in case the excrement hits the fan. Not only do I think government isn't necessary for a civilized society based on free-trade, but I don't think it has a moral right to exist at all. Anyone who believes that they have a moral right to initiate force to solve social problems is not a moral human being. I'm 40 years old. All this and I don't believe in any of the 10,000+ gods that have been worshiped by humanity over the years, not even whichever one(s) you believe in. In fact I would think a belief in intelligent design would make a person more likely to not understand free-market capitalism. "How can anything work if there is no state directing and controlling everything? Why, it'd be chaos!" God is socialism writ large.

You have basically answered your own question. We can only make assumptions based on what we know. I would have to believe if I was given reasonable evidence for doing so. This doesn't just go for a supreme being. If there was proof of fairies in the garden or leprechauns or the Lochness monster I would believe in them as well. My criteria is the same. If the only evidence is a mix of hearsay, tradition, fear, and wishful thinking. Well, I won't be convinced. I find this world and the universe we inhabit infinitely wondrous and fascinating just contemplating the things we do know. I feel no reason to make stuff up. One thing that bothers me about religion is that I think it demonstrates a lack of imagination and appreciation for the universe as it is, for reality itself. It's a form of escapism. Science fiction author L. Neil Smith said (I'm paraphrasing because I'm too lazy to look it up) that religion is for people who either can't handle death, or can't handle life. I agree, it is escapism either way. So to answer your question, short of god showing himself (or some other proof), I can't think of anything that would make me believe. I do respect the "god of the gaps" people much more than the born again types who think the world is 5000 years old and god put all this geological evidence of an old Earth, as well as fossil evidence of evolution, just to "test our faith". I mean, what a jerk. If I thought there was a god and he pulled a move like that, I certainly wouldn't be getting on my knees and worshiping him. Then I'd read in the bible how he hates women and gays, and indiscriminately slaughters people all over the place and I'd be declaring myself to be his enemy and joining the other side. What it comes down to is that I just can't imagine worshiping anything or anyone. If god exists and he wants me to believe he exists, he knows where I live. He's welcome to come for a visit. If not, hey, no skin off my back. But if he wants me to worship him? I don't care who or what he is, nor what he'll do to me....he's out of luck. He'll need to earn my respect same as anyone else. Hiding away in the gaps isn't something I respect. Making people doubt his existence or blindly follow what they've been told "on faith", isn't very respectful. Which leads me to conclude only two possibilities, either god doesn't exist or there is a god who went through the trouble of creating the whole universe, but he's a big irresponsible jerk. Occam's razor clearly points to the former.

That can be arranged. If L. Ron Hubbard can start a religion about space aliens living at the center of the earth, there is no reason why I can't start one about a celestial tea pot. That is interesting, but not proof of god. There are many odd states of consciousness that some people can put themselves into. Buddhist monks can manipulate their brain and body in ways you or I probably can't. I will never speak in tongues because I will never be able to put myself into that frame of mind. If you could prove that the image was caused by radiation, that would be interesting, but still only proof that there was a source of radiation and someone's image was captured by it. Hardly proof of a resurrection from the dead or that Jesus himself is the one in the image. Many people existed at that time. Many of the people mentioned in the bible probably existed as well. Still not proof that Jesus (if he existed) was what he said he was (if he indeed claimed to be some kind of man-god creature). You are talking about a very primitive superstitious desert people from thousands of years ago. I'm sure they told all kinds of stories. These particular stories happened to be the ones a Roman emperor wanted canonized in the 4th century to be the official religion of the empire. Not very convincing. There was a study done where someone created the whole tunnel and light effect by electrically stimulating a certain section of the brain. I'm sure that when you almost die or you do stop breathing and your heart stops for a while and you come back that it is a very emotional experience and affects you in some profound way, which may even change the way you think about life. All of that is understandable, and none of it is proof of anything. Humans are pattern seeking creatures. While this helps us survive and thrive it also has some weird "side effects" where we see patterns when their aren't really any. Do some reading on a few conspiracy theory websites for a good course in what I'm talking about. Things happening in your life right when they "needed" to happen and that you were praying for are nothing more than lucky breaks. Its funny how when you think something "needs" to happen and you pray for it, then it doesn't happen, you look back on it and think that what actually did happen was "for the best" and you interpret that as "god's plan" or "god looking out for you". People interpret things through their own lenses. Even though bad things certainly do happen to good people, for the most part human beings are wonderful at adapting to and surviving almost anything life throws at us. We just don't often give ourselves the credit for our resilience. It is more comfortable to think that someone more powerful has our back. I'm just an odd duck who is more concerned in what is true than what makes me more comfortable.

Thanks for posting this fascinating study. I've never heard of this one before. "Groups form easier than they fall apart" This is unfortunately true, which is why we all need to think of ourselves as human beings first and foremost and relegate whatever other B.S. group you think you belong to (country, team, race, etc), a very, VERY, distant second (if at all).

Yes, mankind will never know everything there is to know, so regardless of how much we shrink those gaps there will always be gaps for god to hide out in. One reason that god of the gaps doesn't appeal to me is that I am afraid to die and everyone I know is afraid to die. I know how attractive "life after death" sounds. So much so that if it didn't really exist, someone would have to invent it. In my opinion that is exactly what happened. The intense feeling of not wanting to die is proof enough to me that religion is invented. Nothing else could explain an almost universal belief in something for which there is absolutely zero evidence for. As Dawkins says I also don't believe that there is a teapot orbiting the sun between the Earth and Mars. Of course I can't prove that there isn't, I just have never seen one shred of evidence to make me think that there is one. God is the same. There is plenty of reasons to invent god if he doesn't exist: Fear of death or the willingness to use peoples' fear of death to gain wealth or power over them. But, like the teapot in space, there is not one shred of evidence to support it.

You'll find a lot of discussion of this in Dawkins' writings. But basically, postulating a god as an answer to these questions is just answering them with an even bigger question, so it's no answer at all. It's like saying in ancient times: "How does the sun work?" "God makes it work!" "Well, how does god work then?" While the correct answer we now know is nuclear fusion of hydrogen atoms under massive pressure from the star's own gravity well :) Exactly. I forgot who said that "religion is simply pretending to know things you don't know". Your guess is as good as mine what happened at the beginning to start the universe. But saying "God did it" is so unsatisfying to me, because 1) you have no idea if god did it or not. And 2) even if he did, my next question is where did he come from? Why does he exist? What is the meaning of god's existence? You think you've answered everything, but you've answered nothing. And the big problem is that, thinking you've answered everything, you stop searching for answers. As an atheist I'm perfectly happy with answering "I don't know", when I really don't. As far as consciousness goes. Again I really don't know, but I think it may be an emergent property of the network effect. In other words it is inherent in the highly parallel structure of our brain. I think once higher level problem solving evolved in big brained mammals, maybe by accident (random mutation), that maybe natural selection took over from there to refine it. I think bonobos and maybe chimpanzees are a lot more intelligent than most people think they are, and maybe conscious (do some research in this area you will be amazed at what bonobos have been taught to do), how do we know they don't have the mental capacity to be more civilized thinking beings or to think about thinking (sapience), but just lack the capacity to speak and thus develop language? Again, I don't really know any of the answers, but "god did it" is highly unsatisfying to me, because it explains nothing and there is no proof of any God doing anything.

If you do some serious introspection. I think you will find your "belief" in both God(s) and Government(s) springs from the same source. Your irrational fear of your fellow man. We really aren't all out to get you, you know. Man has evolved his aberration to theft and murder, as well has his need for social acceptance and wont to cooperate with his fellow man, because it has given us (as a species) a survival advantage to be so inclined. It does the individual no good to murder everyone he sees if the species does not live on. I look at morality as a "technology", i.e. something invented by man as a tool for man's survival. In the field of moral-tech, the non-aggression principle, I think, is the state of the art. There are some individual humans who wish to attempt to live via theft and violence. What we should do is work together to protect ourselves from such psychopaths and sociopaths, not give them permission to rob us to raise armies and build nuclear weapons as we do now. --Eric EDIT: Upon re-reading this I should clarify that I didn't mean "you" as in "Liberty", who I quoted, but "you" as in anyone who may be reading this and believing in either type of mythology (gods or governments).

I agree with most of the posts on this thread in that I miss Clinton. Compared with the enormous amount of blood on the hands of the last two who occupied that office, his Bosnia thing (and only bombing an aspirin factory once in a while) seems down-right Jesus-like.

You may enjoy this article, it goes over this very topic. Artificial Intelligence Will Defeat CAPTCHA — How Will We Prove We’re Human Then?

I haven't noticed any either, which I think, is an indication of the time Sanjeev spends filtering and removing them. ^^^^^^^^^^^^ +1

I don't think that receipt is real. Nothing on this menu has prices quite that insane. http://www.nikkibeach.com/sttropez/menu.php Of course there are no drink prices listed, but you'd think if it was $20 for a coke, a steak would be $500, where a T-Bone is only 45€ and many meals are much less than that. --Eric

Fairfax is my largest holding (about 29% as of right now). I have no idea why Prem wants to own even a single share of RIMM. I keep telling myself that he is smarter than I am, which is undoubtedly true, but still... Smart people can make mistakes and fall prey to logical fallacies and inconsistencies in their thinking too. I have this feeling that won't go away that he just likes RIMM because it is a local company, which hires people from a local school that he likes, that he wishes would succeed. Those are definitely not reasons to invest. Hopefully I'm way off base. Then again RIMM could go to zero and it wouldn't put a huge dent in Fairfax, which is why I still hold FFH.

I should have been more clear, when I use the term "capitalist" or "capitalism" I mean "free market capitalism" not crony-capitalism, state subsidized and state protected capitalism, not mercantilism. Bush is not a capitalist by my definition. I associate him and those like him with government not the market. Many have a distorted view of what a free market actually is. If you grow corn or make ethanol, for instance, and you can get the government to subsidize corn and require ethanol in fuel. You may be a lot of things, but a free-market capitalist isn't one of them.

Ethanol has nothing to do with a free market. It has everything to do with government regulations, laws, and subsidies. It is your government that is starving that Egyptian farmer not the cowboy capitalists.

I think if anything will save the US situation it will be the massive increase in energy production from the new oil/gas fields that will be coming online in the next decade. I'm generally bullish on the US economy for that reason alone. The stabilization of energy costs should help the economy recover in every other sector. North Dakota's oil/gas boom to get even bigger, official says Also speaking of "glass half full". Every glass I've ever seen has been completely full. What if a glass was really half empty?

They are on the hook, but there is a lot of hassle proving that you did not do anything to expose your personal information. It then also takes a week or two for them to return the funds to your account. Haven't experienced it myself, but a couple of people I know who had their cards fraudulently used said the experience was not fun...although they were both here in Canada. I would assume the protocol in the U.S. is not any different. Cheers! I've had it happen to me two or three times now. Honestly wasn't too big a deal, just called them up, and they resolved it. One of the times, BAC was so incompetent, they credited me twice! It has happened to me only once and I found out when citibank called me to ask me if I was the one who just used my card at a Wal Mart in NY (I live in NH), I told them no, and they told me that I wouldn't be responsible for the charge and they fedEx'ed me new cards overnight. --Eric

An unbelievable story of how a hacker took control of this guy's identity and destroyed all of his data in minutes. How Apple and Amazon Security Flaws Led to My Epic Hacking "But I’m also upset that this ecosystem that I’ve placed so much of my trust in has let me down so thoroughly. I’m angry that Amazon makes it so remarkably easy to allow someone into your account, which has obvious financial consequences. And then there’s Apple. I bought into the Apple account system originally to buy songs at 99 cents a pop, and over the years that same ID has evolved into a single point of entry that controls my phones, tablets, computers and data-driven life. With this AppleID, someone can make thousands of dollars of purchases in an instant, or do damage at a cost that you can’t put a price on."

you don't need to privatize it. Just get rid of the laws forbidding private companies to compete with it on first class mail delivery then in a few years when fedEx, UPS and whoever else has it covered, shut it down. Those laws were passed in the mid-19th century to shut down Lysander Spooner's The American Letter Mail Company that was eating the USPS's lunch. The US Gov could have and should have gotten out of the postal business right then and there, but instead congress passes a law giving the USPS a monopoly. Spooner vs. U.S. Postal System by Lucille J. Goodyear 'Father of 3-cent Stamp' Spooner fought Post Office

Google Fiber signups going very well in Kansas and talks about expansion to other markets

Many of the questions are infuriating. Take this one: "The plaque the NASA astronauts left on the moon says, "We came in peace for all mankind." Would that be true if there were a commercial free-for-all in space?" I would have answered it: It would be much more true with private industry than with government. Private ventures compete with each other in the marketplace to provide goods and services humanity wants and needs. It is governments who fight wars and wreak havoc and destruction. While the US Government was placing that plaque on the moon it was simultaneously burning the flesh off children in south east Asia with napalm.

The other thing I think is notable is that Google Fiber is symmetric (i.e. upload speed is equal to download speed). My thinking is that they want to encourage content creation as well as content consumption. As for where is the demand for gigabit internet, I don't think there is a demand for it, but at that price I'd be buying it. Google is trying to create a demand and encourage content creation at the same time. If everyone had 1GB internet or even a lot of people had it, there would be high bandwidth consuming web applications that we haven't though of yet appearing all over the place.

I have a cheap phone with Boost Mobil, prepaid. I get voice at $0.10/min and text messaging at $0.10/message. No data. I put $10 on it every few months. I might be a tech guy, but I'm cheap. I wait until I get home and use the home phone to make most calls. My cell is very rarely used. I'd say less than 10 people have the number and they know that if they call it I most likely will not answer, because I keep the ringer off. My cell phone is for me to use when I need to, not for people to get in touch with me. My wife also has a similar phone with Boost and she uses hers less than I use mine.

You might want to think about a term life policy as well. At 30 you can get a $500K-$1M, 20-30 year term policy dirt cheap and that will at least protect your family until you are 50-60 years old. That's what I did 9 years ago when I was 30. I got a $600K term policy for 30 years. If I die my wife will not invest the way I am (she has no interest in investing), but she'll also have another $600K added to our wealth immediately, which should help and give her time to figure things out. The best plan of course is not to die.