BaylorPRSer

Just started looking into this study. I'm exceedingly skeptical, but a lot of it goes over my head. Curious if anyone has any resources/knowledge on this subject, be it further study, critiques, debunking, etc.

You're spot on. I'm just saying that if you went with a certain definition ("an intentionally false statement"), it is slightly more difficult to make the case that someone is lying in certain scenarios. What you and quad said helps a lot and will be useful if this comes up in conversation again.

It came up in conversation recently. Someone made the case that it Is not lying if the person thinks what they're saying is true, but is incorrect. Quadrewple, ah that helps quite a bit.

It seems to be understood among FDR folk that telling children there is a god is lying. Google gave me two definitions for the noun, lie. an intentionally false statement. "Mungo felt a pang of shame at telling Alice a lie" synonyms: untruth, falsehood, fib, fabrication, deception, invention, fiction, piece of fiction, falsification; More antonyms: truth and used with reference to a situation involving deception or founded on a mistaken impression. "all their married life she had been living a lie" Can I assume that here, people use the second one? People telling children there is a god are only lying, if lying includes saying something founded on a mistaken impression. If the definition is limited to intentionally false, then a large chunk of these people would not be lying as they genuinely believe there is a god.

Jpahmad. Perfect. A Saturday late April or May would be good for me.

Anyone want to do a Houston meetup? Posting here in case nobody looks at the meetup group page. I'm down for Katy, Spring, Conroe, surrounding areas etc. I'd be game to drive to Austin for one if it was on a weekend. Let me know.

Really appreciated these replies. Thx guys.

My friend (Taylor) disagrees with the truth claim: "God does not exist." I posted Stef's article that argues AGAINST the existence of God. He rebutted the article, I responded to said rebuttal and then he responded to my response. My Facebook friend with whom I shared the article is the one arguing against strong atheism. I have to apologize again as I made a bad assumption that people on this site have read this article and knew what I meant when I said Molyneux's argument for strong atheism. http://freedomain.blogspot.com/2007/02/strong-atheism-case-for-evacuating_07.html this is what I posted and what my friend is rebutting.

Sorry, this was a Facebook thread. He asked for compelling arguments against the existence of god and I posted Stef's article. The first section is his rebuttal. This is my response to his rebuttal: "I'm not sure how saying something exists n a different realm qualifies it as existing at all. I could make the case that Frodo Baggins exists or could exist in a different realm, but I have no reason to because I understand he is a fantasy being I have read about in books. Actual being is not something mythical. It is something objectively verifiable. Of course philosophers don't defend his definition of god or any substantial definition because they mostly create their own subjective version of god to meet their own needs." I do not believe in God. Hopefully that clears up Wuzzums question about how my definition is not subjective. It is my fault for not making it clear who was posting. Next section is his answer to my response to his initial rebuttal: "I think you're misunderstanding my point. I am not saying that the definition of existence should encompass all logically possible worlds (such as the hypothetical world in which Frodo Baggins exists); I am saying that the definition of existence should encompass all states of being in the actual world, whether those states are material or immaterial.As far as conceptions of God are concerned, I think you're ignoring the fact that virtually every view of God begins with an unembodied consciousness that transcends space-time. All differences of opinion are almost always going to be peripheral to this foundation."

First off, Molyneux is presupposing materialism in the outset by defining existence as "that which is composed of either matter or energy". But surely the realm of existence is part of the debate itself! From the theist's point of view, there is certainly more to reality than matter and energy. But because Molyneux is incorporating his conclusion into his definition of existence (which is his starting premise), he is effectively arguing in a circle. A better definition of existence would be "that which has actual being", as this would allow a more meaningful discussion as to whether or not immaterial concrete entities exist.Secondly, Molyneux is defining God as a physical deity who is confined to the universe and is subject to the laws of nature. I really hope you understand how big of a straw man this is. The most basic theistic conception of God involves an unembodied mind who transcends space-time. Molyneux is thus attacking a view of God that no theologian or philosopher would defend. I then wrote: I'm not sure how saying something exists n a different realm qualifies it as existing at all. I could make the case that Frodo Baggins exists or could exist in a different realm, but I have no reason to because I understand he is a fantasy being I have read about in books. Actual being is not something mythical. It is something objectively verifiable. Of course philosophers don't defend his definition of god or any substantial definition because they mostly create their own subjective version of god to meet their own needs. To which he replied: I think you're misunderstanding my point. I am not saying that the definition of existence should encompass all logically possible worlds (such as the hypothetical world in which Frodo Baggins exists); I am saying that the definition of existence should encompass all states of being in the actual world, whether those states are material or immaterial.As far as conceptions of God are concerned, I think you're ignoring the fact that virtually every view of God begins with an unembodied consciousness that transcends space-time. All differences of opinion are almost always going to be peripheral to this foundation.

Thanks a lot guys. I realize that it's up to me I wanted some extra insight. I'm going to work on getting to a place where I can ramp it up to once a week.

Going to therapy once every other week. This is all I can afford at the moment, but I get the feeling it could really benefit to go once a week. Anyone going as often as twice a week? At what point would you say you're not going often enough to get benefit and at what point would u be going too often to where you're wasting money?

http://reason.com/reasontv/2013/02/14/libertarian-philosopher-hayek-supported

I heard he was in favor of redistribution and minimum wage. Anyone know specifically why he held these views?

Excellent! And Houstonians, please comment or contact me, so we can grab, lunch, drinks, coffee, etc. in midtown, downtown, Westchase, Katy, whatever you ladies and gentlemen are in the mood! I don't know anyone who even knows what NAP is outside of me mentioning it, so I am very serious about meeting people who share that belief .

I haven't been camping in years! But I do enjoy nature. I'd love to go camping, but I'm not sure how successful I'd be in getting enough people out there to make it worth your time. I'd be happy to join you either out on your property either way, but just saying . Definitely let me know if you would like to come into town on an afternoon although I can only do weekend afternoons as my work schedule is currently Mon-Fri 8-5.

Not getting any responses in the Meetup section, so I figured I'd post it here. Any Houstonians open to meeting and discussing some important topics?

Interesting analysis. Talking about benefits being coercive sounds like he doesn't understand what coercive means (I know he's not a dumbass and he knows what the word means, but based on this usage of the word, it's almost like he doesn't). I don't even know where to begin on capitalism and it's forms of specialization. I have no idea what that means and like you said it isn't my fault. I think I'm going to just move on I have so little to go on here I don't think the discussion could go anywhere.

I can't for the life of me figure out what he's trying to say. This guy is a fan of Chomsky so I referenced him to try to speak his language. I am aware that Chomsky is not an anarcho-capitalist. “The capitalist worldview is the only one most of us have ever known. We see reality, experiences, events, other people, and things—in fact, everything—as objects for our personal consumption. Even religion, Scripture, sacraments, worship services, and meritorious deeds become ways to advance ourselves—not necessarily ways to love God or neighbor. The nature of the capitalist mind is that things (and often people!) are there for me. Finally, even God becomes an object for my consumption. Religion looks good on my resume, and anything deemed “spiritual” is a check on my private worthiness list. Some call it spiritual consumerism. It is not the Gospel.” Like · · Unfollow Post · Share [*] 2 people like this. [*] Christopher William Day Capitalism = anarchy. I am an anarcho-capitalist and nonreligious. So is this aimed specifically at religious capitalists? 2 hours ago · Like [*] Christopher William Day What Chomsky refers to as "real existing capitalism" is a diff story 2 hours ago · Like [*] Ellison Rhodes I find this not specifically aimed at religious people but using the language as an example of being content with the what society has fed to the masses for years. The religiousness of it is used to show the contradictory nature of Capitalism and the m...See More about an hour ago · Like [*] Christopher William Day I frame this a little more simply. If the system is voluntary, it's fine, if it involves coercion, it's evil. Take a resource based economy or anarcho-syndicalism. According to my understanding of economics, these systems won't work, but as long as I am not forced to participate, let people organize their communes how they want. I will never use force to stop them, but I expect the same courtesy in return. 32 minutes ago · Like [*] Christopher William Day I've noticed that self-serving psychology in religion as well 31 minutes ago · Like [*] Ellison Rhodes Participation should be voluntary but in a just system the benefits of participation would be the only form of coercion but any forceful act is unjust and a violation of personal sanctity regardless of the system at hand. Capitalism, with its forms of specialization, can form unjust structures due to individuals monopolizing niche markets forcing some into using their services, which the individual can unjustly exploit or produce unethically. 2 minutes ago · Like

I had my first meeting with him and haven't gone back yet, but he was a very nice guy. Things I liked: 1. He still attends therapy and thinks it has been hugely beneficial in his own life. 2. He has been fascinated with people and what makes them tick since he was 12 and wanted to be a therapist since. Things I was iffy: 1. He doesn't give homework assignments, only things to think about (not a deal-breaker, but I did find Nathaniel Branden's sentence completion to be useful). Something that jumped out at me was when I asked him about the concept of different thoughts leading you to negative places and identifying them he responded by saying, "it's like having a tape recorder and you take out the tape that says I'm going to have a bad day and put in the one that says I'm going to have a good day." I liked him overall and will probably try him again especially considering he can accommodate my work schedule (Mon. - Fri 8 -5) Anyone have any thoughts or suggestions? Any Houstonians have any therapists to recommend?

Specifically how governments have used them for nefarious purposes

I just found out the therapist was a theology graduate. I am an atheist. Does anyone on here see this as being a problem?

Me and a friend discussed starting off with one car only doing midtown, downtown area Friday and Saturday evenings from say 7 p.m. to 4 a.m. alternating driving. Do you think the startup costs even for one car and no drivers/office space would be to high to start off on a part-time basis?

, meaning you'll have to get one on auction: http://cohapp.cityofhouston.gov/FIN_FeeSchedule/default.aspx Get what on auction? Thank you for the help.

So I have a business idea. This one will take a lot of work and capital to get off the ground, so it won't see the light of day for quite some time, but I wanted to mention on here to hopefully figure out the flaws in my thinking as well as whether or not the idea is worth pursuing at all. Here it goes: I live in Houston and have noticed that the taxi industry seems stagnant. During less convenient hours it can be hard to get a cab at all without waiting for over half an hour and they are super-expensive. During peak hours in key locations, it's easy to get a cab, but I still see room for improvement. My idea is a transportation company with a fleet comprised exclusively of hybrid cars and cars that get obscenely good gas mileage. I am aware that these cars are expensive, but in the long run, the decreased cost of gas would allow us to charge less and hopefully undercut the industry. Also, there will be a phone app that I plan on putting a lot of effort into to go with it. Any advice? Also, any Houstonians on here interested in getting involved?