The limited time Melancholy Meal that came with just razor blades was a big mistake

@shinyblurry

The facts are simple: the existence of God explains everything that you feel about wanting to do good, and the love that you have for people and life, and your atheism denies it. Yet you embrace what is contrary to your own experience.

AND from farther down

… your atheistic presuppositions about reality. You say no one has come back but one man has, but of course you dismiss the account as fantasy (again because of your atheistic presuppositions).

Those aren't facts though. Those are your opinions and conjectures. Your theory of God may explain a greater number of things around me than science, but it also raises more questions than it answers, which makes it a horrible theory. "My atheism" doesn't exist as a concept. I don't subscribe to any belief about Gods any more than a monkey does. Are monkeys atheistic? I'm like a monkey. I have no "-ism" that "denies" anything. I happen to lack belief in any supernatural deity. *This lack of belief defines my atheism, rather than atheism defining my lack of beliefs.* I can't believe you still don't understand my position (or lack thereof). I have no idea what you mean by embrace. Nothing about my experience with "meaningfulness" requires me to believe in any gods, particularly not Yahweh.

So if it makes you feel good its okay to be a slave? You don't mind being enslaved to a mindless irrational process because you get rewarded for it like a rat activating a feeder?

Chemicals in my brain cause me to feel hunger and crave food. I follow them because doing so makes me feel good. I don't consider myself weak for being driven by those chemicals in my brain. To really feel like a slave, I'd have to be compelled to follow the commands of a sentient being, like a plantation owner with a whip, or a god of love threatening me with eternal torture, for instance, not chemicals in my own brain. Can there be shame in being a slave to yourself?

So I will modify this and say that you're living like a theist does but denying it with your atheism.

You changed one word, but missed the point of mine, so I've changed the same word: So I would turn it around and say instead that it's Christians *theists* who go about their lives living like normal humans, but thinking they're being good because their religion tells them to.

Now what?

Therefore what you're talking about is a herd morality.

Yep. Pretty much.

The entire point of my example was to show that if we simply have a herd morality where the majority tells us what is good and evil, then if the majority ever said child rape is good it would be.

If your whole final end goal is to prove your child rape hypothetical is internally consistent, and not to extend it into the real world, then yep, that's logically quite true. However, if you want to use it make any point about proving my beliefs to be somehow wrong, then you'll have to give me reason to believe it could ever possibly happen in a sustainable way.

My point was that we all come pre-programmed with a need for worship, which you apparently agree with. That is what is natural to us … It is actually more natural for us to rebel against God because of our corrupt nature.

Are we programmed to worship, or to rebel against God? Which is it? I propose that we're genetically designed to do exactly what makes us happy. Being good to others makes us (non-psychos) happy. Worship also makes many of us happy. Cognitive dissonance does not. I don't believe in any god, so I can't possibly worship one with a straight face. That would be cognitively dissonant and make me unhappy. I see no need to introduce the concept of "corruption".

The sense we agreed upon and have been discussing is that that life without God is meaningless … Therefore the meaning you derive from your feelings is only an illusion created by chemical reactions in your brain.

All cognition, from self-awareness, to thought, to the senses, to desires, to emotions, to numinous experiences, all of it is 100% chemical reactions. It's only fair to call my conscience an "illusion" if I also consider everything else that I perceive to be an illusion created by the chemicals in my mind. My feelings are as subjectively real as my senses.

There are other causes of depression but you see my point. Hope is the solution to depression.

That can be true. It's human nature to want to worship, and worshipping something can give hope. So for some people, if they can convince themselves to believe it, worshipping a god can lift them out of depression.

On what basis do you say your belief is more likely?

Occam's razor.

You say there is no reason to speculate (ever); now that is an interesting statement from someone who believes in open inquiry. What you've said is actually the death of inquiry. And let's be clear about this; you have speculated.

If there's no way to establish the truth of something, then there's no sense in trying to do so. There are no reliable records of the afterlife, so hoping to reach a conclusion is a vain pursuit. You can imagine hypotheticals, but you can't give any rationale for preferring one over another. Except by Occam's razor. What you consider "speculation" is just me saying, "nothing disproves anything about the afterlife".

Of course anything is possible when you summon your magic genie of evolution. "Time itself performs the miracles for you."

It's scientific fact, not mine, not anyone's. It's yours too, if you want it. You just have to go and learn about it from an unbiased source, not from uninformed people with pre-conceived ideas about what it is and isn't.

So no one is really bad?

In the relative non-objective morality sense, no, nobody is inherently bad or "evil" apart from our judgement of their actions. We often call people "bad", but that's just shorthand for what I said, or for having difficulty accepting that another person can do something so contrary to our concept of good.

Well, I'm fairly sure you've told me before that you hate the idea of God telling you what to do.

True, I would resent anybody giving me free will, then giving me a choice of doing what they say or accepting the worst conceivable torture for eternity. Did I misunderstand something?

[me:]Does the bible that say that rape is wrong? Does it say you cannot marry a child?

[you:]I've covered this above, but I will also add that if we had evolved differently, then in your worldview, all of this would be moot. We are only in this particular configuration because of circumstance, and not design. It could just as easily be 1000 different other ways. There could easily be scenarios where we evolved to exploit children instead of nuture them.

For a species to evolve to exploit children rather than nurture them is nearly impossible. That gene would get weeded out of the gene pool very quickly. Maybe I'm missing your point, and what you're really trying to say is that according to me, human feelings about right and wrong are, at their essence, random, because humans could have developed different feelings about right and wrong. I agree.

Back to my question: Does the Bible say that rape is wrong? Does it say that you cannot marry a child? To save time, could you point me to a neat summary of all the biblical rules that still stand? The Commandments were given in the Old Testament. I thought that law was struck down and there was a new covenant now, no? No sex before marriage is one, I'm assuming. Do you have to attend mass on Sundays? What are the others? I'm surprised to hear that you don't think the Bible suggests any position on condom usage. Is that just a Catholic hang-up then?

[me:]In both cases, you didn't address my point. 1) I'm stating that Yahweh's laws are far, far more complex than secular morality. You countered that Yahweh's laws were as simple as Jesus' two rules.

[you:]Romans 13:9-10

I agree that the rules in that verse are clearly derived from "love your neighbour", except maybe coveting, but that's not the point. Once I see the summary of biblical edicts, I'm sure I'll be able to point out that "Love your neighbour" isn't enough, that there are rules you would only follow because they're stated in the Bible, not because they obviously flow from the concept of neighbourly love.

So, when we think about doing unto others, we would think about it in the context of how Jesus taught us to behave.

So you're saying that we have to adjust our conscience first to align with the Bible, and then follow it. I'm saying we can just follow it according to what is bad for people.

abortion statistics

Good point. Foetal rights/women's rights is the moral debate of our times, IMO, maybe of all history. I haven't found any solid position on that issue. I've thought a lot about it, but this isn't the place to debate it. Suffice it to say I don't see abortion as a good thing, but not equal to infanticide either.

So your answer is yes? You think that without religion, society may decide torturing babies is good because it decided that killing Jews was good?

Yes, I think an entire society could end up agreeing on something that depraved, just like the ancient Greek society approved of paedophilia.

You know Germans were 94% Christian during WWII, right? And that the Greeks had those relations consensually? I'm against legalizing sex with children because it would be abused and children would be victimized, not because I think it's impossible for a child to enjoy and benefit from sex. I did it when I was underage and it was nothing but good.

You also act as if I am trying to defend all religion, which I'm not.

The thing is, you regularly invoke the 85% of humans who are theist when having a large number bolsters your argument, yet you disassociate yourself from most of them when their behaviour weakens your argument. I can never tell who you're talking about. Clearly identify the people you're talking about at all times, and we won't have this problem.

In any case, there are many examples of non-believing societies doing sick and depraved things to their populations.

And many Christian societies too, but I'm sure you'll disassociate yourselves from *those* Christians.

Tortured for Christ

According to Jesus, the Romanian government was appointed by God, so those Christians must have been doing something wrong, perhaps rebelling:

Romans 13:1-5

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended.

That passage, BTW, makes my stomach turn for all the people (Christian or otherwise) who have been tortured and killed at the hands of immoral rulers. And Jesus says might makes right. Go Jesus go. Prick.

[you:]… logic, rationality, morality, uniformity in nature …

[me:]You're slipping back into solipsism. We agreed not to go there. I'm not going to answer any of those things.

[you:]Now you're just trying to duck the issue, and perhaps you don't understand what solipsism is, because this is not solipsism. Solipsism is the belief that only your mind is sure to exist.

What I am talking about is right in line with the video. Without God you don't have any ultimate justification not just for any kind of value, but even for your own reasoning. It is a direct implication of a meaningless existence. This is what I mean about a justifies b justifies c justifies d into infinity. You have nowhere to stake a claim which can justify anything which you experience, or even your own rationality. If you feel you do, please demonstrate why you believe your reasoning is actually valid.

Then you've entirely missed the point of me making those rules back at Qualiasoup v. Craig.

We agreed not to question the validity of our senses. If I can trust my senses, then I am self-aware. I must assume I'm a rational agent, since it was my own rational awareness that defined my self. If I'm a rational agent, then I can trust logic, which Craig tells us in the same video is a rational thing to do.

If your whole argument is, "a god must exist for you to be able to use logic" then I put it to you to show me logically (and not tautologically) why that must be true. To me, there's no connection.

I still don't see the infinite regression. Give me a real example of it in the form a justifies b which justifies c....

Also, what's "uniformity in nature" and when do I ever appeal to it?

Just an aside gents, most ladies prefer the softness of a silky, well-groomed beard on their privates should one venture south of the pelvic cirlcle....
Always remember: "Razor stubble troubles, a tender taffy-puller!!"

Our Grandpas used a leather strap to keep their razors sharp so this basis is actually sound.

this is why toilets should have a spinning vortex of razor blades in the trap

i cant believe the guy picked it up without getting ripped to shreds. You could see a little bit of blood but trust me, those claws are razor sharp.

This is overly confusing for my mind. In that, I have concluded that none of this is about guns, and it is all about drugs being illegal. Trying to make crazy gun laws because of bad drug laws is just kicking the ball down the road all the while creating new problem. Start at the root not at the symptom. Drug cartels want guns because they want to protect their interests in drug production to sell to the US drug user. Gun sales to cartels are financed by the fact that drugs are illegal. Statically, for drugs, crime does pay...so well that you can arm yourself with some of the finest guns on the market. This would likely continue even if stricter gun laws existed in the same way drugs still get sold even though they are HIGHLY controlled. /rant

For one thing in the video, wouldn't the NRA make more money if guns are seized? I mean, if the cops have it, then you don't...so you need to buy another one. Or are guns like razors, the bullets are the real money maker? At any rate, it doesn't matter. I don't expect to see eye to eye with Cenk on gun rights, but I would expect him to call out the real problem as drugs, but perhaps that is a little convoluted for this conversation exactly.

I remember this one time in the Tenderloin of SF I was at a corner store of the infamous sixth street. I was walking out of the store when a bummed out crack head came rushing around the corner. He hit my beer as he walked by, not on purpose but because he was fucked up. He yelled, "watch where you're fucking going!" And I yelled "YOU watch where YOU'RE FUCKING going". And then all of a sudden I had all of these fucking idiots coming out of the woodwork at me. So, I kept walking and they kept following.

I crossed the street and I don't remember what I said but one of the guys just came up to me and quickly arranged a razor blade to my neck. And I just kept saying "DO IT, DO IT, Let's see you do it!"

I'm not sure if that is the way to handle it but it freaked the guy out.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^bcglorf:
So the moral is, it is absolutely time to panic.
Not just maybe, but absolutely time to panic.
Fortunately, he IS overstating the situation. Right from the very start he declares how stable the last 10k years have been, and that the last 100 have already broken all records seen over those 10k years. Go use google scholar and read Michael Mann's recent work on reconstructing the last 2k years. Mann is one of the leading scientists arguing that it is time to panic and things are getting bad very fast. His research is publicly available on google scholar for everyone to go and read.
If you can be bothered to go and read that before shouting me down as a denier, you will find the following in his research. That there is at least some evidence that on at least two occasions over the last 2k years, climate HAS been as warm or warmer than current.
I'm not saying it's all roses and that there is nothing to see here. I AM saying that if you go read the actual research you'll find a much more nuanced and less panic stricken assortment of facts than what is presented in this video.

Can you post a link to the page your talking about? I used google scholar, but Mann has published quite a few papers and I really don't have time to read them all.
That said, even if I read the paper, I'm not confident I'd understand it fully. From my limited research into climatology, it's a reasonably complex science. My problem is that I don't really have time to study all the theory around this.
And frankly, I shouldn't have to. I'm not a climatologist. No-one alive today can possibly hope to understand all science in every field. That's why we specialise. With a small amount of ego, I'm willing to say that most climatologists are worse programmers than I am, but that's ok too, 'cos that's not their field.
What I'm trying to say in my trademark, rambling, incoherent way is that I generally accept a scientific consensus (assuming it's been properly peer reviewed and so on). Fallacy of majority? Possibly. I'm willing to accept the possibility that there's a gifted climatologist out there who is desperately trying to get the rest of them to understand the crucial theory/evidence/algorithm they've missed, and it's all going to be ok. Hell, I hope there is, but it seems unlikely to me.
To apply Occams razor: which makes more sense?


You can see Mann's latest work here. Just don't stop with reading the abstract where he declares the reinforcement of his previous studies and findings. Go further down and look at the reconstruction of the last 2k years the article was built on. The green EIV line is the 'newer' statistical method recommended to him by statisticians that claimed his previous method was biased towards 0(minimized highs and lows). You can clearly see the EIV reconstruction shows multiple peaks in the past. More importantly though, look at the last 100 years on the graph. The bold red line is the instrumental record. It blots out most of the last 100 years, but if you look closely, you can see that none of the reconstructed lines spike away into scary land like the instrumental record. In fact, none of the reconstructed lines climb above where the EIV line has peaked multiple times in the past. To me that screams the need to look harder still at the probability that our methods for reconstruction aren't sensitive enough to pick up a short spike like what we know from the instrumental record is currently taking place. That doesn't prove spikes like the last 100 years are common, but it DOES call into serious question the claim that it's never happened before in the last 2k years. That final claim is the vital and key point between everyone panic and lets study this further to understand it fully.

>> ^bcglorf:

So the moral is, it is absolutely time to panic.
Not just maybe, but absolutely time to panic.
Fortunately, he IS overstating the situation. Right from the very start he declares how stable the last 10k years have been, and that the last 100 have already broken all records seen over those 10k years. Go use google scholar and read Michael Mann's recent work on reconstructing the last 2k years. Mann is one of the leading scientists arguing that it is time to panic and things are getting bad very fast. His research is publicly available on google scholar for everyone to go and read.
If you can be bothered to go and read that before shouting me down as a denier, you will find the following in his research. That there is at least some evidence that on at least two occasions over the last 2k years, climate HAS been as warm or warmer than current.
I'm not saying it's all roses and that there is nothing to see here. I AM saying that if you go read the actual research you'll find a much more nuanced and less panic stricken assortment of facts than what is presented in this video.


Can you post a link to the page your talking about? I used google scholar, but Mann has published quite a few papers and I really don't have time to read them all.

That said, even if I read the paper, I'm not confident I'd understand it fully. From my limited research into climatology, it's a reasonably complex science. My problem is that I don't really have time to study all the theory around this.

And frankly, I shouldn't have to. I'm not a climatologist. No-one alive today can possibly hope to understand all science in every field. That's why we specialise. With a small amount of ego, I'm willing to say that most climatologists are worse programmers than I am, but that's ok too, 'cos that's not their field.

What I'm trying to say in my trademark, rambling, incoherent way is that I generally accept a scientific consensus (assuming it's been properly peer reviewed and so on). Fallacy of majority? Possibly. I'm willing to accept the possibility that there's a gifted climatologist out there who is desperately trying to get the rest of them to understand the crucial theory/evidence/algorithm they've missed, and it's all going to be ok. Hell, I hope there is, but it seems unlikely to me.

To apply Occams razor: which makes more sense?

Looks like me trying to shave with my safety razor.

I made changes to the Sift Talk to help make it more "on-topic" for the 'Sift-Talk'. I could have done more, but this is what I will settle on for this Talk post. I hope you appreciate that I decided to actively take the demanded advice for what I thought VERY incorrectly was a topical forum with strong multimedia applications.

I was wrong! I learned. I changed and added, so please re-look over some of it; the videos are VERY much worth your time and will help inform you of the whole time table in periods of two years at a time. BTW, if someone can find me a very good 2012 documentary PLEASE post it so I may add it so it can be complete!

I hope you appreciate what I've done and that I went against my own comment, went off-topic (yes, I know that post had a razor's edge to it, but it was supposed to).

Here is to getting back on topic and to satisfying some of the demands required; next time I will aim it much better so that it targets our community yet still asks these hard questions.

It really would be nice to have a general board/forum on the Sift to stop the miscommunication. Sorry to those offended, if you read this anyway, you can now un-ignore me now...

I've maintained some form of facial hair since I was a freshman in High School (at that point it was ridiculously long/tall but sparse sideburns). I hate the way I look after a clean shave, and hate razor shaving in general, so the most I'll ever do is trim down to stubble with an electric trimmer.

Most of the time, I'm rocking the Abe Lincoln beard / Amish chinstrap (no trimming/shaving to make it artificially even, just natural varying height from jawline up the cheeks). I used to shave my moustache area with an electric razor, but I've gotten too lazy for even that so I now just trim it down to stubble when it gets ratty. I'd like to just go full-on and incorporate it into a full beard, but unfortunately my moustache still seems a bit sparse compared to my beard at 30 years old. I'll get there eventually I think.

Occasionally people will suggest/hint that they think I should shave, which I suppose is the 2010's equivalent of "get a haircut, and get a real job". But personally, I prefer the way I look with a beard and I hate the feeling and hassle of regular shaving, so it is an easy choice to ignore the naysayers and keep the beard going.

I'm amazed at how many guys say stuff like "doesn't it feel itchy to have a beard like that?" -- in my experience the answer is NO, not at all; the itchy part is between a fresh shave and stubble. So if I were to shave regularly, that would be every day, all the time. Screw that noise...

>> ^Asmo:
How wonderfully arrogant. You refuse to accept something ergo it doesn't exist...

I've yet to see one..that's why I invited you to come up with one. You say you don't have to, and I say, you don't have one. If you did you would have used it already.

>> ^Asmo:
No, there aren't, and no, there isn't.

"How wonderfully arrogant. You refuse to accept something ergo it doesn't exist..."

>> ^Asmo:
There is conjecture and hypothesis predicated on belief. In the absence of belief, the "evidence" ceases to function.

The Universe from nothing - logical absurdity

abiogenesis and macro evolution - conjecture and hypothesis predicated on belief

The atheist answer "we don't know, and we're working on it, but you're still wrong"

The theory of God has explanatory power, and is a better explanation for the evidence, such as fine tuning in the Universe, and information in DNA. Scientists cannot explain why the Universe appears fine-tuned for life, so they postulate that we there are multiple universes, and we just happen to be in the one that looks designed. The problem with that theory, besides the complete lack of evidence, is that it violates occams razor by multiplying entities unnecessarily. "I don't know" is not an answer, or a reason to reject a better theory.

>> ^Asmo:
He might have been a real person (much like Hercules/Herakles might have been a real person), but the miracles attributed to him remain unproved.

There is powerful evidence for the resurrection, even that skeptical bible scholars accept. The empty tomb is not as easily written off as many atheists who have never studied the matter imagine. My entire contention is that you can test the claim by asking Jesus to come into your life. It is not a matter of me proving it to you, it is a matter of God revealing Himself to you. He will give you the undeniable evidence that you're looking for. This isn't a game..God loves you and wants you to know Him. All you need to do is ask Him to come into your life and He will do it.

>> ^Asmo:
Yes. I particularly enjoyed the part where god commanded the israelites to commit genocide or where Lot fucked his daughters (you'd think god would have seen that coming and made him leave behind his daughters in S&G cos they were nasty..) It has been venerated for so long that few actually think to question it, and then of course everyone interprets it according to their own beliefs anyway, and ignores the bits they don't want to take notice of (the point of the video above).

You say you've read the bible and this is what you got out of it? Or is it that you've read infidels.org? Are you honestly telling me this is what you've gotten out of your reading of the bible? Even Richard Dawkins respects the bible as a work of literature and historical resource.

>> ^Asmo:
I've also read texts from many other religions. I think the buddhists come closest to the mark.

"The Buddha said that no one should simply believe what he said, but we should all think for ourselves and discover the truth through analytical meditation."

I don't subscribe to their religious views but I like how they think.

Scripture tells us to discern all things. It's not a matter of blindly believing something, as you seem to be implying. If that was all it was, I wouldn't believe it either. It is because of the correspondence to reality, and the undeniable evidence I have received, that I believe it.