chasteh

>Simply postulating that it is the faith of believers that creates their deity and makes it real for themselves gets around all of those objections. Ok. But even withing scifi novels there are still propositions that are inconsistent with other scifi propositions from other writings. Because they co-exist doesn't mean that they can all be true at the same time.

I suppose that is up to you, unless the label implies in any way that they are all false- this is important especially when you cannot know they are true or false. >I'm nearly certain Sorry man, certainty doesn't come in degrees. "Nearly certain" is like saying "sort of exact" or "probably perfect." >I can discount most religious creation "stories" as myth since just about all of them can, in fact, be easily disproved. But not all, hence, "myth" isn't applicable.

>Science, while not having perfect models for either, would logically conclude that there can only be one true answer Science doesn't conclude that for us. Logic does. Science gives us the information with which to assign truth values to statements, but it does not determine that they can or cannot all be true at the same time. Science is a method we use to seek truth. Logic is a method we use to preserve truth. Having said that, several religions can indeed have truths that are consistent, its just that they end up losing that when each of them states: "This is the only God. Or This is the only true way of believing" >Which creation myth? Calling it a myth is just as invalid as calling it the truth. There is insufficient evidence one way, so there is insufficient evidence the other way also.

>I'm not trying to tell anybody else how to live their life So then what do you mean by "we" when you say: "That's really all we need to do to make this a better world." And by whos standards are we making this a "better" world? Yours? >That would make it a religion. Mmmmm. No. A religion would fall in line with a set of beliefs that are followed on the basis of faith as opposed to necessarily indisputible truth. It actually would make it a set of ethical standards. Of course, every religion- in its explanations and writings - includes ethical standards with which to evaluate our lives.

>The same, of course, applies to other mythical supernatural creatures too. You mean like the flying spaghetti monster? Right. But that doesn't mean we have sufficient reason to believe in it. That is pretty consistent with my statement. >So which of the many mutually exclusive "gods" do you choose? By what clause am I bound to decide?

I guess youll have to show me the scientist who has said such a thing. By reservoirs of energy, are you referring to potential candidates for God-Units?

Science cannot prove this. Does that mean we can definitely say God does exist? NOOOOO Science is limited to the empirical universe. Unfortunately, we just can't rule out the possibility that a God-unit (G-unit) exists not as something we can experience with our senses but is still very real. If there is room to doubt the empirical sciences, then it is possible for God to exist. There is room to doubt the empirical sciences. Thus, it is possible for God to exist. Science cannot solve this. I think it is funny that people are still spending time and money trying to figure that one out.

now how the hell did they do that....

His terms are complex enough to be placed in the academic elite. To be in the academic elite is to be elitist. To be elitist is to look at everyone around you as mere mortals. To look at everyone as mere mortals is to force them into agreeing with you. And forcing people to agree with you is the same thing as being socialist, and NO ONE wants to be a socialist! God help us!

Very interesting. “Americans drink 13.15 billion gallons of carbonated drinks every year.” The doctor speaking in these dialogs is, Dr. McCay, the nutritionist at the Naval Medical Research Institute. Fuel consumption per year is up to 175 Billion gallons per year. I never thought of beer or soda pop that way, Misunderstanditron. Well done.

>credible scientists Credibility? The nerve!

Oh yea, and it is still more likely that kallend has an accurate conclusion here than mnealtx. Just thought i'd rock your boat since that isn't even a topic of our posts anymore. "why is everybody making fun of my pants? Their just pants, why not give em a chance? I like the fit. I like the cut. I like the way they make me look when I strut-strut"

>You cannot Bingo. So that means that If you act in selfless way simply to come to a selfish result, you are acting selfishly. That is not altruism. >Selflessness is selfishness from a different perspective Interesting. That kind of depends on there being a self-interested motive within that selflessness. In that case, there is no selflessness. It is selfishness. >I've never read Ayn Rand If you want to be hard-core about free-marketism, you definitely will want to read read Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead. You really depend on it. She considers the only way te be capitalist is to also be an ethical egoist, rational, and free. Warning: She hated libertarians. She also hated anarchists. >Perhaps. They are my observations on myself and on others. I have found that every time a person is arrogant, they end up getting themselves into trouble. Don't get yourself into trouble. >There is an irreconcilable tension between freedom and order. I admit that. Right. Because when we say we want "minimal" government intervention in our lives or the market, we rely on subjectivity in our determination of what is "minimal." >Nor would I prefer to have alternative fuels not yet commercially viable forced upon us. Ok. I'm sure you will also admit, when the time comes, that we won't have that option.. What do we have till, 2050? I might be alive that long. By then we will also know if todays predictions regarding global warming were correct. We shall see if Indonesia is still above water level at that point. >global warming - the reason for the proposal And petroleum costs/availability edit: Jesus also warned us against self-interest because it resulted in Greed, War, Lust, and so on...

>Altruism is great. Altruism is consistent with self-interest HAH!!!! Oh dude you are funny. "Unselfish regard for the benefit of others" is not consistent with self-interest. Sorry. Cmon dude, I know you want to think differently, but do it in an interesting way, please. >As a sidepoint, everyone is wired to be selfish That would be a important for an ethical egoist, wouldnt it. Unfortunately, Psychological egoism isn't the same thing as ethical egoism, and psychological egoism is still up for debate. I spent an entire semester studying this. >So, there is a selfish reason for their selflessness. Stop it, please!!! LOL! oh man. ok. How can you be both selfish and selfless at the same time? Wouldn't you just revert to being one again? If you act in a selfless way for the purposes of acting for yourself, then you are acting selfishly. If you are selfless, and you do it for selfish reasons... you aren't selfless. Game over. >Name me an altruist who does it only for sake of altruism other than you or me. Jesus. Still playing? Ghandi. Mother Theresa. The people who responded in the Hudson river when U.S. airways Flight 1549 crashed into it. No one there had time to think about self-interest when it happened. They just responded. >If you can name that person, then that person has let the altruism be known. Let altruism be known! >Which is a species of selfishness. Or so you think. Actually, the U.S. was founded on individualistic goals. So, Americans typically are selfish. You've been reading way, way too much Ayn Rand. You should slow that down a little bit. >I've known plenty who would give you the shirt off of their backs, so long as it was properly documented with photos and video because they want others to see how good they are. Of course. Alot of people act in self-interested ways. Thieves do, lawyers do, alot of people do. Does that mean everyone is? MMMMMMMM no. >I don't. I say we are who we are and what I am. Really? It sure looked like you were putting youself on a pedestal back there. Mr. genuine honest libertarian man. Yea yea of course you do. What brand of clothes are you wearing right now? What kind of car do you drive? Who's political philosophy are you adoptring right now? That doesn't sound like you are your own man. Thanks for playing though. >I think it's better to leave people alone and be left alone. Libertarian seems to be the party that is most in support of this thought. I completely agree. Well done. As much as I think the greenpeace guys around my school have good intentions, i'm fucking annoyed that they don't leave me the hell alone and that they feel like they have to intrude on me every 5 seconds. Enough. Back the fuck off. Ill take your message, but leave me alone about petitioning congressmembers to force people to change their ways. >Absolutely. The subtle differences differentiate people. I'm unique - just like everyone else. In the sense that no two trees are alike, yes. There are small differences. However, you are still a human-and your just like the rest of us. All of us sheep. Sheople. You are sheople, just like us sheople. (In other words, your differences don't really matter-sorry man) >The government is there to protect the market. Now the government IS the market. Great, so now we both agree that the government is necessary even to a free-market. (making it NOT a free market) Where do we place the limits on what the government can do? Why? Are the reasons why consistent with your thesis? Is your thesis still applicable? >It takes a huge investment and a massive amount of cooperation to do this. The public, seeing no real advantage to them and an increased cost, will not buy it. The public will "have to" eventually. Just like you will "have to" find some other method of transportation. Given enough time not even you will be able to afford gasoline. When it becomes profitable, the government could use it to eliminate part of the tax structure. Fascinating.

>>Well, we don't really want them to be illegal either >I find that hard to believe - if they weren't illegal they would be paying taxes, and the democratic party would have no platform to campaign on. Totally man. As if that were the main platform the democrats used to win the election. Brilliant. Wait a minute, if they weren't illegal and they were paying taxes, that would mean the republican party would lose its platform as well. Without platforms, who could possibly run an election? If they can't run an election, how could they expect to run the country? If they can't run the country, how will they expect to be re elected? If they can't be re elected, how will the republican party maintain its support base! Oh heavens!

pictures

I have pictures of this if you'd like to see it- it is qu ite amazing.

>Libertarian = honest. We don't lie about our intentions like good conservatives and liberals. We like sex. We like alcohol. How cute. Aren't you a lawyer? Which is it... honest or a liar, again? >We work for outselves. Well, at least when you can. >We donate to feel good about ourselves and not bring press to ourselves. Yea, fuck altruism. As a side point, everyone is wired to enjoy sex. Unfortunately, the christian coalition won't admit that to you. Liberals would. So would Libertarians. Please don't but Libertarians on a mound above the rest, it is rude and arrogant. >So you admit that right now it isn't feasible. Not exactly. Just because something takes a few years to finally earn profit doesn't mean it isn't feasible. Cmon lawrocket. Thats a piss poor excuse for not entering a market, and you know it. >The government may get the glory and go broke doing it Of course you would need more information to say such a thing. Like for example, you would want to know precisely when such an industry could make itself a worthy substitute to petroleum fuels, and if it wouldn't in the near future, you would be more likely to be correct. You would also want to know when the world's proven oil reserves are going to peak, and when its cost would begin to get high enough that you could sell a comparable substitute for a better price. "The world's oil reserves are up to 80 percent less than predicted, a team from Sweden's University of Uppsala says. Production levels will peak in about 10 years' time, they say. "Non-fossil fuels must come in much stronger than it had been hoped," Professor Kjell Alekett told CNN. Oil production levels will hit their maximum soon after 2010 with gas supplies peaking not long afterwards, the Swedish geologists say. At that point prices for petrol and other fuels will reach disastrous levels. Earlier studies have predicted oil supplies will not start falling until 2050" >I am not an anarchist. I believe in the rule of law. I also see how the rule of law can be used as a political weapon to destroy. Great, so what perfect balance between taxing people to fund that government but not supporting the tax structure is adequate for your utopian vision, then? >Nope. Shows how fucked up government is, duddenit? It's a point we can both agree upon. Well there you go. Point made. >You know not what dwells withon my heart and mind. Oh silly you. We've discussed this before. You are no different than the rest of us drones. Most people like to think they are so different from the masses, but they aren't. There are a hundred yous out there and there are a hundred mes. The similarities far outweigh the differences, especially when you factor in the point that we all end up having the same experiences, just at different times with slight changes in setting. Didn't you say you like sex? Hmm... not very different from the libertarian lawyers (who, I suppose, really are humans) before you who enjoyed sex. >Government actually does a better job than vigilantes. Wow. Libertarians are capable of saying "government does a better job" all in the same sentence. Now, where is the line drawn? How do you consistently say that there should be a genuine free market but allow the government to intervene? (Didn't you say this was necessary given taxation?) >helluvan assumption Heh. Just like your views on the market. Time will tell if such a market is feasible in the long run. >It'd be a shame if a valid point was overlooked because some asshole deemed you unworthy. Right. Aww shucks, its just how it is. Provide some sound means of disproving other's theories on global warming and you will make history books. Oh wait, your party already tried. Looks like science didn't agree with you yet. >this aint a court of law, sir. We can assume what we want .......ooook..... Anyways. My assumptions were for the purposes of illustrating the result of a hypothetical situation. You can do this anywhere bucko. >One might actually be teaching ing Chicago or developing batteries in San Diego. Can't have that. They post on dz.com Hilarious! That means they are a qualified person. Random posters on dz.com typically aren't. Way to go lawrocket. I'm going to call you Misunderstanditron from here on out. Yes... Misunderstanditron. >That may qualify to to expoain how you destroyed the planet, but not sociopolitical issues. Unless, of course, I worked in Saudi Arabia and saw it first hand. Wait, I probably shouldn't talk about this. Forget I said that. (Who is Exxon, anyways?) >You've just lost ALL credibility Yea dude. Your still a lawyer. This would entail that you don't have a soul. But you can still not have a soul and not be an asshole.

>A gallon of gas generates about 20 pounds of CO2 Well that doesn't make sense. What does a gallon of gas weigh? A gallon of avgas (or 100 octane low-lead gasoline) weights 6 pounds. Where do the 20 pounds come from?

>I don't mind people and businesses making money. I do care when governments decide who wins and loses and when people and businesses say they are not in it for the money. Yep. Didn't you say you were a libertarian? If not, your definitely close enough. Are libertarians crazy? That is another thread to be sure. >First: Instead of bailouts? How about "no bailouts. Fuck them." They already happened. Oops! >Second: if there were profits to make then private industry would have done it. Don't be silly. Everything takes a bit of time even in the private sector. Not every new technology was profitable in its first days, but many that weren't profitable for years created major markets. How long are (edit) *new* businesses expected to be in the red before they earn profit, again? I heard something along the lines of three years. The company I work for is a good example. Cmon, lawrocket, don't be that general! You surely meant to say something smarter than that. >If private industry can't do it profitably, then the government won't. You certainly hope so being a free-market anarchist and all. (edit) Hell, I suppose I will spend some time finding a counterexample. So... then... could the government not operate the U.S. military to earn a profit? You may say: Well, private industries do operate militaries, an example being Blackwater. And then I say: Would Blackwater exist without the government? And then you say: Most definitely not to the proportions that it currently does. The government subsidizes their services, and they earn profit on that. And then I say: Oh.... wait... were you making that point or was I? >Add to that the money that the government would lose in tariffs, taxes, leases, payroll taxes, corporate taxes, capital gains, etcm, you are talking about bringing in a subsidized industry and ruining a huge tax base. Ok.... so then we will... keep taxes? You are a very, very confusing libertarian. (edit) Wait aminute... thats right. You would just eliminate the government from the equation. Not so confusing. Crazy? Another thread, >Remember - those huge profits that oil companies make are music to the ears of the treasury. Great. >>I wonder if we would actually have more national security threats as a result of stopping our oil consumption. I'd like to learn more about that. >I haven't considered that point. But since you have no credibility or qualifications in that area, you really aren't capable of bringing up a point like that. Assuming I don't have qualifications in the area, it would then make it less likely that I would have relevant information to add to the claim as opposed to someone who did say have a lot of foreign policy experience or perhaps were a graduate student in history or maybe even a member of a radical Islamic group in Saudi-Arabia. They would be the ones to ask. If i didn't have any (or only had a few) qualifications in this area, I definitely wouldn't be a prime consultant on the issue, but I could still have a valid point. It is just less likely. (edit) Wait a minute, Chasteh, that sounds a lot like how issues are handled now! Blasted private and government research organizations... hiring qualified persons to conduct research and all. They should hire guys from the dz.com forums. What were they thinking! >you have no credibility or qualifications in that area I guess I better not tell you about my time with Exxon then. (Oops!) No, I don't think your an asshole. You're just a lawyer, one who is very skillful at bending what someone else says slightly enough so that it serves your interests and makes it so that most others don't notice, including judges.

>Government intervention causes winners and losers. Let's just look at a carbon cap and trade law. Hedge funds and the financial industry is drooling at the thought of an entirely new commodity on the market. It'd be a new currency Yep. Drool. Too bad for you libertarians, that would be yet another reason to scream. >Ask who is pumping in money to lobby for the new environmental restrictions. There are plenty of entities and people who will make a shitload of money off of it Yep makes sense. Hey, wait a minute. Instead of the corporate bailouts we have to deal with and the level of taxation that no conservative person supports, why don't we just have the U.S. government socialize the next enviro-friendly alternative fuel that comes out? With the profit levels you speak of, we wouldn't have to tax an American soul again. That seems like a pretty win-win scenario. (edit): Also, wouldn't this solve much of our involvement with middle-eastern oil lords? Would we be in fewer wars in the middle-east? I wonder if we would actually have more national security threats as a result of stopping our oil consumption. I'd like to learn more about that.

>Probably about the same standard of 'science' that is obtained when a 'consensus' decides what is suitable for print or not. Right. Let's not confuse that statement with a factual one about how science books, or the research gathered for them, are written.

Oh, sorry. It just looked like we were now talking about why they did it. (In your post you are using Irony to point out that the reason why they employed that equipment was to clean the air. If not, then you are saying that they don't employ those measures to clean the air)

The author does not create a necessary difference bucko. It just turns out in alot of cases it makes a BIG difference. For example, in terms of psychoanalysis you could study any of the thousands of rediculous pieces of advice people have given to you over the years regarding problems in your childhood.... Or, you might just read some of Freud's findings. In that case, would you rather look at Freud's research or the information that was written simply in accordance with another persons psychological assumptions? I'd take Freud's research. There is an example where the author makes a huge difference to the science. Freud revolutionized it.

>Which, of course, is why factories go through the expense of stack scrubbers, supertemp exhaust, etc etc etc How many of those are implemented, do you think, for the purposes of cleaning the air? How many power plants and factories out there in the U.S., do you think, employ those measures for the purposes of meeting government restrictions or the tax incentives that are associated with said equipment?