And what happens if you find someone who isn't an ex-convict and who isn't a fat nerd? Would you date him?

I think you've gotten a couple replies from people who fit the bill --

You say that each thing is the sum of its purposes. I think this is where things become a little sticky --

I claim that Purpose is a description or prejudice that Man assigns to an object. Purpose is not an inherent trait, where as Being is an inherent trait. For example, we call an object a hammer only to describe what we see as its Purpose. If we gave a hammer to a cat, however, the hammer would only be an object or a toy to the cat. We see that a the Purpose(s) of an object depend on our interpretation of the object. Another example: Imagine I didn't know what a hammer was. If I found a hammer somewhere, perhaps I would use it as a ruler to measure small distances, or perhaps I would call the object junk and throw it away.
In contrast, Being, what something *is*, is an inherent property. A hammer is actually an object with a thin cylinder of wood nearly one foot in length with an oblong, flat piece of metal fixed to one end. Thus, the object has certain intrinsic characteristics, which do not include a purpose.

When you talk about a person and what a person *is*, it becomes more clear that we are not the sum of our purposes. We have no specific purpose upon being born, unless our parents conceived us to fulfill a specific duty or our society assigns us a life purpose. However, these purposes do not encompass what we are. For example, my purpose is not to create art, but I doodle sometimes, and this defines me as well.

Well, can't we say, "I am something?" We are, after all, something, even when you lay aside the physical shell that is the body. If we were nothing, then we wouldn't be, correct? And, come to mention it, to say that what is around us is perfectly nothing is not quite accurate either. Even if our surroundings are illusions created by our minds, then our surroundings are *still* our thoughts and interpretations, which *is* something.

Anyhow...

Perhaps you are correct.

You may have skimmed through the article too quickly though. Although government regulations restrict GM from taking money from pension plans to pay wages, isn't that sort of good? How would you like all your pension money to be down the drain?

Worker lay offs are a given and are not really preventable at this point. The stimulus is here to mitigate losses, not to prevent losses. =\

No where in the article was the stimulus package directly blamed for these layoffs, nor for the tax cuts. These things were going to happen and we all knew it since September.

I haven't served, so of course, like you said, I don't have much experience to back up my argument on this.

Perhaps you're right, but just because many women are out of shape doesn't mean that is how nature made them. I wouldn't discount women so quickly.

I'd be laughing so hard at your rant and giving you a high five or something...


...if the current state of the nation didn't make me want to vomit.

Here's some advice: Study **** like crazy and try to figure out a way to fix this bullsh*t mess that our country is in. Obama and everyone else needs our help. This goes for everyone here too: If you have the time and the opportunity, it's time to make ourselves into citizens who know how to help and get out there and change things. The time for indifference and complacency is over.

Ah, I didn't think about incest increasing the likelihood of expressing diseases carried in recessive genes. Well, that solves that one...

I also agree that two relatives marrying is fine...although I, too, would hope they decided to not have children for the genetic reasons you described.


Yes, and by scent, I believe the professor was referring to pheromones, but I wasn't sure if he had used that word. =\



Yes, it's true that cologne or perfume might also help. O_o
Which, oddly enough, is a reason why brothers and sisters who wear a fragrance are like reproductive death traps, hiding their genetically similar and thus repulsive scent under a facade of sweet smell. Those wily bastards...

What was I saying again?



Indeed, I wasn't suggesting that pheromones are a deciding factor in who we are attracted to.

Yes, you're right. It's good we're talking about this because it allows me to belabor the other point on which we agree:


FOLKS, >> No one uses abortion as a planned method of contraception, so NO, girls won't run around like crazy getting pregnant and aborting if we accept Pro-Choice as law.

Ah, point taken...and it was a stupid thing for me to say. I should have stuck a "maybe" or "perhaps" somewhere in there because I really didn't know if anyone does that. Either way, that doesn't change my point (which is the same as yours, btw): Abortion is not a practical form of birth control.

That's a page on the *Republic of China*...i.e. Taiwan...Taiwan runs quite differently from Mainland. =\

To quote from Wiki: Selective Conscription (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_service#Selective_conscription) :

"Conscription has existed in theory since the establishment of the People's Republic of China in 1949; however, because of China's huge population and therefore the large number of individuals who volunteer to join the regular armed forces, a draft has never been enforced."

So, in theory, you're correct. In practice, it has never been enforced since the birth of the PRC in 1949 for the reasons you stated. That still means that men and women are NOT forced to do military service. By contrast, all South Korean men MUST do two years of military service after high school. In my book, that means China has no draft in effect...if you disagree, then we'll have to agree to disagree! ;-)

Most of the guys I've talked to hated it. ^_^

About the energy left in a corpse after death:

Well, if I define matter as condensed energy (which is one "claim" that science makes), then after death, there is perhaps 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% *less energy left in a corpse.* Maybe even less than that. So...nope, I really can't agree with you.

What's more, the energy that does dissipate upon death dissipates as electricity and heat into the surrounding environment. Now, I don't discount the possibility that we have a soul, so perhaps the soul leaves as well. Science doesn't say that there *isn't* a soul, just that we haven't seen any *proof* of it yet.



Acquired limbs and organs:

I did not know that medical science could attach a limb to an amputee's body. That's truly incredible!
Yes, and I can believe that certain pleasures that involve repetitive motions, for example knitting, could be transfer to an amputee the way you describe. After all, muscles build up a certain muscle memory, I've heard. Certain muscle groups develop based on actions that we do frequently...

As for the transferring of traits when receiving an organ, I'd be a little more skeptical. After all, one's love for baseball is not contained in the kidneys!



"Science has learned what nature knew all along" :

Nature doesn't "know" anything. Nature is, to put it in Zen-like terms.
I don't quite understand what your point is when you say we didn't find out these things about organ/limb transplants until 50 or 10 years after. Nature works the way it does because it is, I believe, governed by the laws of physics. Scientists take it upon themselves to unravel the mystery that is nature, so why does it surprise you that it takes scientists years to figure things out? Scientists are only human...



About faith as a part of science:

Your example of the Radon Detector is very good. I think it says how faith and science coexist happily and necessarily in our daily lives, even if others don't quite catch on.
And yes, maybe one day, science will discover that there are, in fact, souls among us. I think that'd be a really cool discovery, although it'd be a little unnerving...just think...people walking around us all the time looking at what we're doing, watching our every move...gazing at us longingly with sad, dead eyes, wishing they could return to life once more...

I'm seriously creeped out now. Of course, souls don't have to be haunting like I just described them to be, but sometimes it's fun to feel creeped out, lol.

Anyway...everyone uses faith all the time. The Scientific Method *assumes* that when we make an observation, this observation can be used to make conclusions. When we *assume* something, this is essentially taking a leap of faith. Thus, faith is how science operates at the most fundamental level. After all, if we doubted even our senses, science could not proceed, nor could we live our daily lives. Taking things on faith allows us to move onto other challenges.

Finally, I don't quite understand the point of all your examples. Your first post on this thread mostly denounced science and questioned the reliability of science, but now you are quoting examples of science's successes...

Anyhow...I'm off to do some math and read some politics. ^_^

I'm so tempted to not respond and go do some math...lol, that's what I should be doing anyway. I'll respond though, in the hopes that it'll benefit the both of us.

I do hope you'll really consider what I'm writing to you. I benefit from this in that I can lay out my thoughts and practice writing, but really the benefit is yours to take, I feel. I'm writing this out of my love for you as a fellow human being; I'm writing this for you to profit.
Of course, it may also be that I'm extremely close-minded and narcissistic, but hey...




I do agree with you here to a certain extent...





But...first off, I think it's a little silly how you say I'm probably Wiccan. I don't know where that came from...'cause I'm not Wiccan.

Second, the first sentence of your reply is, "That's exactly what it is." What is exactly what what is? Please specify...

--I don't know why you say science forsook religion so they could justify using animals in experiments. Traditionally, scientific experiments were carried out by monks in monasteries and I would presume they used animals for experiments as well. Also, since in the Bible it says animals were made to serve our purposes, the Bible can be quoted directly to justify lab animals. I don't see why anyone needs to reject religion to have lab animals.
Finally, we would be far behind in terms of science were it not for lab animals. One day, once stem cell research is developed, we may not need animals to test medications. We'll be able to grow a system of organs in a basin and test the medications directly (at least that's what my biochemist aunt predicted).

Ah, you write that those ancient tribes fought for dominance, but that Christians were without such sin? How about how the Christians treated the Native Americans upon arriving here? Many Native American tribes were very peaceful and hardly waged war. What about the Inquisition? What about the Crusades? What about how the Pope supported and blessed Hitler's work with the Jews? The list of Christian crimes against humanity is long and spans through the ages.

So...that puts to rest the issue of the destruction of peoples and cultures in the name of Jesus and God...


And by the way, Darwin was Christian...at least for the first 42 years of his life...

Finally, I don't think all atheists want to eradicate all religions. I think more of them think education is the way to go, so that people can decide for themselves...and atheists perhaps hope that people decide to leave religion, but more importantly, decide for themselves. ^_^

Maybe Israel should have thought twice before stealing an entire country - Palestine - for itself. Perhaps Israel should have also reconsidered caging the population of Palestine in two small regions only to treat the suffocated population like dogs.



Peace and kindness was one of those "few options" and perhaps the best of those options.



And what about the hundreds of thousands of ruined Palestinian lives? What about that price? Does being subject to genocide give one the right to commit such crimes against another ethnic group?




To be fair, it was a crime for Hamas and other groups to send rockets into civilian populations. But...to be more fair, these rockets don't kill many people at all...probably less than 200 people have died from Palestinian rockets since 1948 when the occupation of Palestine by Israel began.

By contrast, thousands die yearly from drunk driving and cigarettes in Israel. And another one: thousands have died since the recent invasion of Gaza by Israel began. Total overkill (no pun intended).

Huh? Perhaps I misunderstood your post, but military service is not compulsory in China except for a couple of days in high school. It's more like an extended field trip, lol.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_service#Selective_conscription

I'm a bit confused as to how to fix the economy. What do you think would work, nogames?

Yeah, I suppose when you put it like that, I don't really believe in God either. ^_^

However, who isn't to say that some sort of powerful being created or engineered us or at least this planet, then left. Deism comes to mind, or perhaps some sort of alien race.

If you define God to be a powerful creator, then...well...yeah, aliens or extra-dimensional beings fit the description.

Finally, though, it's not important to acknowledge such possibilities. Rather, as far as I see it, it's more important to reject religion (lol) and smile politely at those who haven't.

...just be glad you aren't living in Gaza.


Sorry, I get an acute case of jaded-ness whenever I see so much fuzzy, giggly happiness. Maybe I'm just jealous? ^_^

Like God, I can also create things in my image. For example, I may sculpt a statue in my image. This does not mean the statue can walk, talk, or has the ability to sculpt. Likewise, creation in God's image only implies a superficial resemblance to the Divine.

If you ask me, it's pretty narcissistic to say we were created in the image of God. What's more, it implies that God looks like us, which is really confusing. How can an infinite being have a specific appearance?



In the end, God's only good course of action will be to plead insanity!




*falls over* I seriously hope you're just fooling around. You almost gave this Math major a heart attack...

Seriously, though, America's education system has really f*cked up when it comes to math. Honestly, what the hell?! Some people graduate from high school and can't even add and subtract...

And don't get me started on reading...

Priceless. I Hot Topic...of course, it's too expensive for me to buy anything there...it's just fun on principle. O_o





I don't mean to be offensive, RenoirGarland, but I feel like your over-simplifying just a bit.

1) If we prevent Global Warming just in case it's true, we may save the planet. If we believe in God just because we are afraid Damnation may be real, it's doubtable that God would allow us into heaven anyway. Certainly, there are those who don't believe that, but if I were God and I was omniscient and I knew that people only said they loved me because they were afraid of the devil, those people wouldn't earn my respect...

Of course, if i were God, Hell would not exist.

2) Uhmm...when someone dies, there is still a ton of energy in that body. If you cut the arm of something that has been dead for 5 seconds, probably some blood will spurt out just like when that person was alive. What's more, the body does not immediately go to ABSOLUTE ZERO upon death. No, there *is* energy in the body, even if the temperature isn't 37 degrees Celsius (body temperature).

3)

I think that's just flat out wrong. Most of my friends have made of religion or Christianity at some point, even the friends who have a religion or believe in Christianity. I don't think any of them do so so that they can justify torture or experimentation on humans. I think you are simplifying the topic very much. The reason why people make fun of religion is varied and more complicated than you say.

4) Oh, and we also test drugs on humans. That is the final phase of drug testing, though. No scientist delights in using poor animals for testing things. However, if we did not do this, there would be no way to test medications and hypotheses thoroughly. All those medications that everyone takes have all been thoroughly tested, and without this testing, these medications could kill or maim people.

5) Also, I don't think most agnostics/atheists rejected their faith because they were afraid of taking responsibility for their sins. That's a complete non sequitur.

6) Scientific Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of situations.

Thus, a scientific theory has never and never will be a fact per say. A theory allows us to understand a phenomenon or predict what will happen. A theory may turn out to be wrong, and this is the power of science: Science dictates that we do not KNOW anything 100%, but we are more or less certain.

Piltdown Man was a hoax, but scientists thought it was true. Later, they found it was false so they threw it away.
T-Rexes, scientists later realized, perhaps use their mouths as their means to kill prey. So, scientists changed the books.
I forget why we don't think of Pluto as a planet anymore, but perhaps we found out new information about Pluto? Or perhaps our definition of a planet changed.
As for medicine, things are constantly changing because medicine is such a complicated subject. Doctors and scientists can't exactly just dissect everyone to figure out what is going on, can they? And even if they could dissect us and put us back together fine, the chemical processes of the body are too complex to understand just through dissection. I hardly would fault medical science for this but rather applaud their efforts and progress.

Let me pose to you a situation:
Suppose we were co-workers. I told you that the super market ran out of eggs yesterday. Let's say you believe me.
Later, you go to the super market to buy some milk and to your surprise, you see that there are eggs.

Well, do you keep believing that there are no eggs at the super market because that's what you believed before? No, of course not. You change your view because of what you see. Scientists, when they find new information, must also change their views.

Now, next time you see me at work, do you call me an idiot for saying there were no eggs at the market? No, because as far as I knew, there weren't; I don't have perfect knowledge of everything. In the same way, scientists don't have perfect knowledge of everything. They can be mistaken, or perhaps something has changed unexpectedly in the situation they're studying. Just as you wouldn't fault your co-worker for having outdated knowledge or for being mistaken, how can you fault science? Scientists don't claim to hold all the answers. They only say that they have an fair idea of how some things work, and they acknowledge that they might be wrong.

Perhaps, though, you had some rather dogmatic science teachers as a child. In case the point is not already clear, let me just say that Science and Dogma are pretty incompatible.

7) Now, you can believe what you want about the Bible. If you believe that the Bible is a history book, that's fine. However, you'll have trouble convincing other adults of this without showing them any sort of proof. Where is the proof that some omniscient being in the sky called God once blew up two towns called Sodom and Gomorrah? Where's the proof that He once flooded the world to destroy most of Humanity? And finally, where is the proof that the God of the Bible is a good and kind God at all? If the Bible is a book of history, then it's easy to show that God is Evil. Even without the Bible, to say Hell is a reality is enough to show that God is Evil and Cruel.

=\

On the contrary, I think most people who are Christian do not live their life "seeking peace and happiness through helping other people." I think most Christians spend life being told what to believe when it comes to their faith. This can restrict one's thinking (though, of course, many people are brilliant and have faith at the same time). What's more, being religious is a serious time sink. ;-)

On the other hand, being a thoughtful agnostic/atheist exercises the brain quite a bit and lends itself to introspective thought, which I believe is quite beneficial.

Of course, if you die and there is a God and he sends you to hell for not believing...well, then you go to hell and that sucks. However, if I DID believe and I found out that God didn't let in *good and moral* non-believers, I'd say, "F*ck you God. I'd rather spend eternity in hell without you and your close-minded lackies."

So, for me, if God turns out to be so selective, it doesn't matter 'cause believe or disbelieve, I'm going to hell. On the other hand, if God is the beneficent and merciful God I'd support, then whether I believe in him or not doesn't matter.

After all, if God is the cool dude everyone says he is, he would understand my reason for disbelief and wouldn't take it as an insult. What's more, he'd probably be happy that I chose a path of inquiry and self-inspection.

So, I pose the question to you: If everyone got into heaven regardless of their beliefs, would you be angry? ^_^