Low-level anxiety, procrastination, jittery energy useless for humdrum work, bad overall energy levels if you consume alot of strong coffee, painful wakeup in the morning, adrenalised brain geared to snap decisions rather than measured reasoning.
Or
Bounce out of bed at 100% energy, fluid easy reasoning, easier learning, relaxed, enjoy slow movies, good overall energy, fine with humdrum activities, far less procrastination. Less impatient with people.
The caffeine-energy thing is pretty bogus. The problem for me is that I find it fun.
Just realise that giving up caffine means tapering for many people as the migrained a heavy coffee drinker can get form cold-turkey can be the worst, worse than anything I;ve ever had before. Also, even decaf and cocoa have too much caffeine, and with the reduction in tolerance as you come down in dose, so you become more sensitive. You really have to give it up completely, which is a shame. But the upside is massive.
A great deal of speculation in that article. Sounds more like psycotherapy ideas than real psychology/neuroscience.
Meanwhile, let's look at the (paraphrased) claims:
"Science is not compatible with religion."
Yet the Big Bang theory was invented by a physicist who went on to become a Catholic priest, George Lemaitre. And the father of modern genetics is not Darwin but a catholic monk, Gregor Mendel. hmmm. Both had google doodles recently.
"Evolution and creationism are not reconcileable."
But Christianity has never had a formal dogma that the Bible is literally true as a historical document (but neither any reason prior to modern science to think otherwise, but that misses the point). 3/4 of Christianity is fine with evolution and the Big Bang, and 14 billion years, and for Catholics even the existence of aliens. It's arguable that the rest are just reacting to Atheist claims, clutching to a dogma that doesn't exist because they are simple and uneducated Christians who don't know better.
"There is no evidence of a god."
But this claim has to discount those who claim to personally know a god as deluded. That's clearly a fallacy. Sure, spiritual 'contact' doesn't give 3rd party verification (the 3rd party being an agnostic who hasn't had such contact), and will not satisfy the determinedly materialistic who will only accept physical evidence, but what evidence of a spiritual God can we expect in the material universe?
More importantly, wouldn't a god be able to give proof of itself? And wouldn't that proof, if it were a personal god as claimed, be person to person communing? The author evidently did not actually personally know the god she eventually rejected and by a Christian standard never had faith.
Faith "Belief without evidence". Thanks for that presumptious redefinition, Bertrand Russell, but that is not a Christian or religious definition and has no etymological roots. Sure makes them look silly, though. The real definition of faith is more to do with direct personal knowledge of a god.
Or let's take Dawkins favourite argument "Who made God?". But this was answered by Thomas Aquinas centuries ago. A thing whose nature/essence is existence, to exist, self-evidently exists. Since it must also self-evidently exist of itself, and is therefore self-referencing, the real question is not "Is there a god" but "Is this self-referencing fundamental thing also self-aware?". Either Dawkins is ignorant or he's lying by ommission (which he already does with evolution).
But here's the kicker: an atheist beleives that there is no god - which is why they quite outrageously call religious persons deluded as no agnostic would - yet there is no proof of the non-existence of a supreme being.
So while atheists are always irrational whether or not there is a god, religious persons are only irrational if there isn't a god.
The irony is wonderful. Faith as "Belief without evidence" applies to atheists more than religious persons.
What's your best atheist argument? I can pretty much defeat any atheist argument.
Please don't do religious flamewar on HN. It's all the same, and nothing good ever comes of it. No one will be persuaded about such profound things on the internet; all that happens is that people whose feelings get triggered show up to carp at each other.
How was what I wrote a 'flamewar'? And especially in the context of the anti-religious views that elsewhere were not flagged nor called flamewars. What's your agenda, Dang?
Politics, religion, philosophy, these are worthwhile things to discuss.
HN is not for generic discussions about grandiose topics that always get people riled up. Those discussions are not driven by intellectual curiosity, which is the organizing value of this site. They turn into ideological battles and tangents, which produce mediocre comments. It's a clear win for HN not to host such arguments, so you should look elsewhere for that variety of 'fun'.
I know it always feels like the mods are biased against you, but I've scolded plenty of anti-religious zealots for breaking the HN guidelines over the years, including at least one in this thread.
Yes, some religious people have done some good science. "There is no evidence of a god", but, what counts as the evidence of the gods existence? How, even, will you define the specific meanings of "God" and "exist" in this case? It is difficult.
I fail to see how Dawkins is "lying by ommission (which he already does with evolution)"; maybe you can elaborate how that is.
I agree when you say there is no proof of non-existence of a supreme being.
Also, I think that faith as "belief without evidence" doesn't applies to atheists more than religious persons. I have seen argument of such thing but fail to see how it is good. How is that?
I have seen many arguments for and against the existence of God, and they are not valid. There are different problems with them.
Also, believe or not believing the existence of God doesn't make you irrational. (Although a lot of both atheists and religious people will do many irrational stuff sometimes.)
Rather than Atheist arguments, I prefer how the Church of Satan deals with religion, challenging hypocrisy with silly but strong legal arguments. I think Atheists should change from arguing whether a god exists or not to challenging the self-serving frauds found in fundamentalist churches in the US Bible Belt. So much money and time is wasted in those mega-churches that could be better spent actually helping those in need.
That is a valid point. There is people doing bad stuff and they say by religion or by God (not all people doing bad stuff is, but a lot is). And, yes, you should challenge it and try to stop such bad thing. Yes, I believe you, so much money and time is wasted in those mega-churches that could be better spent actually helping those in need. (Some churches maybe do help those in need sometimes, but many don't. And you don't need to be religious to help someone, anyways.)
Your post is full of strawmen and logical fallacies. You cherry pick statements in order to make your own position sound more rational. You lump Christianity into one big group and then ignore the anti-science crusade currently going on by most of Christianity. You dislike definitions so you make up new ones and claim that are better because only then can you claim that they are silly. Every single part of your post shows you didn't understand or possibly read much of the article. The article at hand didn't say religion is silly, it didn't say it was wrong. The article simply described that more people in the United States are losing faith and that it's a gradual process where faith gets replaced by the brain by some other thing whether that be sports, science, or some other thing it didn't matter. I'm sure you're a wonderful person, but your arguments only sound clever if you make up arguments or you already fervently believe solely in Christianity.
Yet I spelled out that much of Christianity (at least; if not other religions) have no issue with the fundamental scientific claims that are said to disprove religious claims.
That the Big Bang, 14 billion years, and evolution are all the product of famous scientist Christians was just the icing on the cake.
The fact is that science does not in any way disprove the existence of a god.
The example isn't the same as religious claims. Firstly because all religious people claim that the 'invisible' friend will talk back if you make the effort to make contact (with few exceptions, but some are: the arrogant, the idly curious, those who wouldn't change their lives even if they knew).
And unlike fairies at the bottom of the garden, a supreme being has by definition the power to prove its own existence to the individual. Nothing else does. Think about it, you can't even prove your own sanity to yourself, or that anything around you exists. Even science can't deal with that one.
So sure, I can't prove a god's existence to you but I could witness to my own contact with one. Depending on your evaluation of me as a person of integrity and sensibleness, you may be encouraged to make contact. But to dismiss a person as not sensible because of such a claim is clearly fallacy. First you would need to prove it can't be true.
>> You mean you suppose it to be imaginary.
... if you'd talk to schizophrenic, you also refer to their imaginations as 'supposed imaginations'?
All you are trying to do is bend reality to fit your view.
By shifting my word and redefining stuff. There is no difference between imaginary friend of you child and god.
>> So sure, I can't prove a god's existence
Thank you, end of conversation. Anything else added after 'but' is superfluous fluff.
Please don't do religious flamewar on HN, and please especially don't cross into personal attack, because we ban accounts that do that. It doesn't matter how wrong or annoying another commenter is being.
"But here's the kicker: an atheist beleives that there is no god"
Nope. A-theist simply means someone who lacks theism. I don't posit that there is no god, I simply don't believe there is any evidence or reason for me to believe in one. The burden of proof is yours my friend.
"What's your best atheist argument?"
I don't need one any more than I need a "best argument" against the existence of pixies. The default position is not to believe in something without a good reason. Why would we?
As soon as you can provide any solid scientific evidence that a god exists, then we can talk.
"Nope. A-theist simply means someone who lacks theism."
Actually it was coined by theists without a strict reference to the greek and was defined as "To Deny the gods/God".
Lately, the OED modified the definition to "To Deny or disbelieve in the gods/God", which is actually quite a radical change and has thoroughly muddied the waters of discourse.
But really, think about it: if atheists are going to call religious persons deluded, or even think it, as they consistently do then they are true believers.
Also let's break it down (especially to counter the confused nonsense that is the wikipedia article on the definition of atheist):
Either you:
1)believe there is a god
2)beleive there isn't a god
3)have no belief either way.
Now, we need a word for the 2nd. What is it to be if it isn't 'atheist', as you are claiming. And why should it not be 'atheist' when that was its original meaning? And that's what most non-atheists think it means. And by that definition it only has one meaning, which is seriously helpful in debate.
We should also ask, why are atheists telling us they merely lack belief when they walk and talk like they genuinely believe there is no god, even to callign religious instruciton child abuse (Dawkins). And why are they insisting on redefining 'atheist'?
Is it perhaps because the more educated atheists know their position and belief isn't provable, and so such a belief would be rightly called out as irrational? After all, beleiving in the unproven is not reaosnable. Belief means certainty, and you can't be certian without proof.
>>We should also ask, why are atheists telling us they merely lack belief when they walk and talk like they genuinely believe there is no god, even to callign religious instruciton child abuse (Dawkins). And why are they insisting on redefining 'atheist'?
Is there a god? Myabe yes, maybe no. There is no way to tell.
Is there a christian god, absolutely not (same with any other religion claiming their god is the one).
I think that's the nuanced position of Dawkins that gets lumped into a bag of atheism.
What Dawkins says is not true of all atheists. Also, there is the difference of positive and negative atheism. Dawkins also has the scale of atheism 1 to 7, and he himself ranks 6 on that scale apparently. Some religious people are good people and some non-religious people are good people. And then, there are also agnostics, ignostics, and meta-agnostics. And then, there is Tom Swiss.
In terms of your "either you: 1) 2) 3)" there is the fourth possibility that the question isn't very meaningful, and you forgot that one.
Also, some scientist and mathematics and computer programmers are religious, but some aren't, and as long as it doesn't interfere with your work, it is OK.
Veganism unavoidably implies a moral superiority where vegetarianism doesn't.
That's pretty irritating.
It also just doesn't mesh with most people's understanding of simple animals as simple and food-driven, not in any way equal to the long existential agonies and traumas of humans.
Their implied moral high-ground, in the face of rampant predator killings in the natural world, adds up to too much Disney and too little sense.
...and lions eat their own young let alone warthogs.
This is only an issue because Donald Trump is misrepresented as being racist and anti-immigration when he has only talked of illegal immigration and the problem of Islamic migrants (ie, the Islamic version of democracy which is not compatible with any Western Liberal democracy).
Before anyone goes vegan, check-out the numerous ex-vegan videos on youtube. Even with supplementation veganism isn't sustainable for most people past 3 years, 10 if you're lucky, very few get to 15. Just keep in mind that without vitamin B12 supplements-->certain death.
This is not a human diet, and humans are not herbivores. Herbivores have complex stomachs or eat their own poop (eg, gorrillas and rabbits).
After the health flush of the first few months, veganism is a downward spiral to pasty skin, mood-swings, depression, dark circles, fatigue, skinny-but-fat, Joint paint, constant hunger/lack-of-satisfaction, excessive volume of eating. Vegans eat like you wouldn't believe. And a great deal of wildlife dies due to agricultural farming.
And despite what people say, anthropologically we are not omnivores but carnivores. Radio-isotope analysis has us eating a diet close to a wolf by preference over the last million years. Unlike a pig, a genuine omnivore, we do not have a proper cecum.
But sure, a few humans are better adapted to a plant-based diet than others, and our distant genetics was herbivore which means these genes can re-express, but for most people veganism becomes a nightmare and explains why the level has historically been at 0.3%.
The wonderfully mad thing about UK politics is that the socialists are very much against the EU and for leaving, but their nominally socialist party, the Labour Party, is Remainer while their leader is a capitulating Brexiter, and grassroots conservatives are Brexiters while the Conservative Party is significantly Remainer with a (now ex) Remainer primeminister and remainer Chancellor of the Exchequor.
What makes a lot more sense it that while the ideological Economist Magazine and academic economists are Remainer (of the same 125 who jointly wrote to Thatcher telling her how wrong she was in 1982; that didn't turn out so well, haha!), Money Week (which is only interested in making money) and the capitalist pundits at the Daily Telegraph are essentially Brexiters.
A healthy capitalism is expressed by G K Chesterton, and is an argument against liberal capitalism,which even Thatcher did not support:
“Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists.”
Like anything, capitalism must be humanised with restraint and constraint, the application of intelligent regulations and actively fighting the private monopolist (Hayek, The Road to Serfdom). For example, to avoid race-to-the-bottom competition by mandating certain features as non-optional. Or for safety. Obvious stuff really. And not burdensome regulations to please a Media campaign or emotional blackmail from the Left.
Liberal capitalism, totally free market capitalism, ends with monopolies as beast eats beast. It's what Marx criticised though he made no distinction between capitalism and capitalism.
And this is what has happened, with monopolies so large that their power to blackmail and bribe is undermining government, threatening free speech and disenfranchising.
...or trust the government with the education of your children. As much as the Left sneer at it, a voucher system would give people the liberty to choose the schools they want and not what they are forced to accept.
Meanwhile, governments support doctrines that have turned out to be false, even just basic things like diet. Animal fat and dietary cholesterol for instance, is no longer believed to be the cause of heart disease. And can aid weight loss.
Social doctrines also are arguably causing widespread misery for people trapped by government welfare systems at such a high cost that it depresses local economic activity.
Self-help rather than government help is the conservative way. And a healthy capitalism is part of that.
The problem here is that modern capitalism is quite evidently not healthy. With the historical profit margin on goods of 3% now at a mad 11% due to monopoly power.
> ...or trust the government with the education of your children. As much as the Left sneer at it, a voucher system would give people the liberty to choose the schools they want and not what they are forced to accept.
As long as everyone gets the same voucher, same amount for voucher, and has guaranteed public transportation to the same schools as others, with no regard for race, ethnicity, background, then sure go for vouchers.... if you can't guarantee those things then it's just another system that can be gamed.
> Meanwhile, governments support doctrines that have turned out to be false, even just basic things like diet. Animal fat and dietary cholesterol for instance, is no longer believed to be the cause of heart disease. And can aid weight loss.
I agree on this because government can be bought and the sugar industry has done a snap job at turning diet industries upside down blaming fat instead of themselves.
> Social doctrines also are arguably causing widespread misery for people trapped by government welfare systems at such a high cost that it depresses local economic activity.
What about welfare that walmart gets? They not only get HUGE tax cuts, they ALSO get to pay their employees dirt wages because the U.S. government will pick up the slack.
Guaranteed basic income could stop that or alleviate it at least by giving them a guaranteed living wage. Another issue is runaway spending on executives who really aren't worth a damn in (many instances), and those who are still are NOT worth what they're paid.
Also how does welfare depress local economic activity more than taking money from the bottom, and funneling it to an offshore account? If A. makes $25k, and gets government help to raise that to $35k, that's $10k more they have to spend yearly. 60%+ will be spent locally propping up the local economy. If B. earns > 10 million annually and gets a huge tax cut that saves them an extra 100k, that 100k is just going to sit in the bank in the Caymen's -- it might be earning interest for the rich guy but that's about it.
> The problem here is that modern capitalism is quite evidently not healthy. With the historical profit margin on goods of 3% now at a mad 11% due to monopoly power
Pegging CEO pay to average of ALL employees including outsourced, freelance, and contractors (even janitorial staff), would go a long way towards making capitalism more fair.
"As long as everyone gets the same voucher, same amount for voucher, and has guaranteed public transportation to the same schools as others, with no regard for race, ethnicity, background, then sure go for vouchers.... if you can't guarantee those things then it's just another system that can be gamed."
Anything can be gamed if you are adequately cunning. That's the problem of the "public parasite". And your conditions are arbitrary and ride roughshod over private liberty and the choices of the parents.
A voucher system would induce the creation of local schools, so the transportation thing is irrelevent (and in anycase the responsiblity of parents not the State).
"Pegging CEO pay to average of ALL employees including outsourced, freelance, and contractors (even janitorial staff), would go a long way towards making capitalism more fair."
That would result in socialism. A healthy system looks for liberty based solutions, not coercions. More liberty intelligently applied (as with vouchers) requires politicans with backbone and brains. Able to withstand emotional blackmail and do the right thing for the long term instead of pretending to solve problems by banning stuff and throwing money around.
I don't think you understand what socialism means. It means government controls and OWNS (thereby we all own) all corporations collectively. My proposal is not socialism, it's reigned in capitalism.
I mean whether the CEO earns 50 million or is capped at only earning 5 million is up to him.
All he needs to do is raise wages across the board. Multipliers could be given also for increased employee#s year to year. --- CEO could still earn plenty, say it's pegged at 200 * average worker and average worker earns 60k - that's STILL 12 million per year, hardly anything to scoff at.
Then say you also get an extra 10% bonus allowance for every 1% increase in employees (you also get docked 10% per 1% decrease), and you increased employment by 2% over last year, so you get 220* average worker salary or an extra 1.2 million. Furthermore we could add bonuses based on u.s. to offshore worker ratio, more U.S. employees = higher CEO pay.
If I'm a CEO earning $10 million, but I want to earn $15 million, I'm going to have to get creative about increasing the average from 50k to 75k. When all companies are in this same boat -- wages across America will go up organically. There almost won't be a need for a minimum wage even.
I heard Fred Hoyle when he came to lecture at my school in the 80s (a prestigious, rich boys school). It was one of the few places willing to give him the time as his views were vaguely in line with Christian creationism though he was an atheist, ironically. It was doubly ironic in that the school was Catholic and Catholic Christianity is not biblically literalist. In fact the inventor of the Big Bang theory eventually became a Catholic priest. hahaha!
Desktop development was a dream with Delphi but Microsoft decided to compete against it and then undermine it instead of supporting it. Not just a dick move, but DaF.
Or
Bounce out of bed at 100% energy, fluid easy reasoning, easier learning, relaxed, enjoy slow movies, good overall energy, fine with humdrum activities, far less procrastination. Less impatient with people.
The caffeine-energy thing is pretty bogus. The problem for me is that I find it fun.
Just realise that giving up caffine means tapering for many people as the migrained a heavy coffee drinker can get form cold-turkey can be the worst, worse than anything I;ve ever had before. Also, even decaf and cocoa have too much caffeine, and with the reduction in tolerance as you come down in dose, so you become more sensitive. You really have to give it up completely, which is a shame. But the upside is massive.