shirgall

Having thought a little more about it, I'm wondering if it is because I did math and programming from an early age, and as a result I always saw symbols as abstractions of real things, and that symbols were meant to be manipulated by the program to get desired results. An example is all the symbolism around the armed forces and their projection of power around the globe. Duty, honor, country, the flag (sometimes draped on returning coffins). I was especially concerned recently with the news from Turkey. Another item that came to mind recently is I was having a discussion about "too big to fail" with my daughter, and how what really was underneath that was which large institutions supported the Fed and were therefore immune from destruction. That such institutions were described as "bedrock" and so on was another piece of symbolism without merit.

Modern mass media makes fun of idiot savants that know so much, can figure out complicated systems, but don't "get" symbolism. Think "Big Bang Theory" or even "Iron Man". However, symbolism is one of the major attack vectors to manipulating mass opinion. Resistance to symbolism is an *asset*. I encounter this far too frequently with people who choose metaphors to understand complicated concepts, yet the metaphors are not apt or applicable. I always marvel at Stef managing to pick metaphors that actually have few problems in this regard. Am I broken because I resist symbolism? I don't go the mass media route of not understanding it. I just reject it most of the time.

Sounds like an emotional vampire. Consider http://www.amazon.com/Emotional-Vampires-Dealing-Revised-Expanded-ebook/dp/B0087OUIM6/ Anger is a component: http://markmanson.net/are-you-an-emotional-vampire

The problem with this approach is that it's the same as saying, "All of my Porsche's are red." Totally true, because I have no Porsches.

Cheating is part of the game, and it's based on the odds of getting cost and the benefit of getting away with it. For example, in Scrabble you can put down a word that is not in the dictionary. If challenged you remove the word and lose your turn. If challenged and it *is* a word, the challenger loses their turn. Is it therefore cheating to put down a word that sounds plausible but you know is not a word against a player who might believe it's real? Government cheats by claiming things are wrong therefore only the government may regulate doing them. The game theorists in government look for ways to declare new things "wrong" because it just garners them more power to wield and profit from.

That was not what we were talking about.

That you have given us a false choice as an argument that Hell exists. (Therefore that argument is not compelling or logically consistent.) You have now posited that eternal justice must exist because it is subjectively pleasing to you. This is also not compelling or logically consistent. If I could claim existence for everything that subjectively pleased me then an argument would exist that would disprove existence for things that subjectively displeases me. This is a rat hole of literally biblical proportions, because you know what would go away next...

I think the point is that an A4E has posited an imagined weapon that is somehow a preferable explanation to one which had thousands of witnesses but supposedly cannot exist.

You are making a false choice here. There are an infinite number of alternatives to these two possibilities.

Science doesn't say this. What is *observed* is that entropy of large systems increases on average. There's a HUGE source of energy pumping sunlight onto the planet and that huge influx of energy creates conditions under which all sorts of interesting things can happen. The sun's energy is dissipating over a gigantic volume of space and a tremendous span of time. On average, the entropy of the system as a whole is increasing as all that matter and energy is spread out further and further. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is not violated. You are not properly accounting for the conditions of the system.

I'd rather spend eternity with Socrates, Freddie Mercury, and Jimi Hendrix than Mícheál Ó Coileáin (Michael Collins), Mother Teresa, and Armand Jean du Plessis (Cardinal Richelieu).

Did you forget that mass and energy can be converted into one another? When photons strike matter despite being massless in flight their energy is converted to kinetic energy that dislodges and frees electrons from their position. This photoelectric effect makes solar panels work allows plant life to make sugars from sunlight. https://bama.ua.edu/~hsmithso/class/Web/Photoelectric-effect.pdf

Stef is careful to also talk about epigenetics, which is all about genes that get activated by your environment. Genetic expression is not just what you are born with but also what you experience.

That's the problem. Man is made in the image of God, supposedly, but the apparent truth is that gods were invented by man. Anthropomorphic coincidences are not miraculous (or benevolent), rather they are deliberate and manipulative. That the Lord of Mt. Sinai managed to overcome the gods of the other mountains in the middle east and eventually suppress to the point of mere mention as "the adonai" or "heavenly host" nee "angels" is not supposed to hold your attention. It was always a monotheistic religion, and we were always at war with Eastasia.

There is so much more than just your genes. If you have embraced philosophy and peaceful parenting and a thirst for real knowledge, you do not pass that on through your genes... you pass that on through parenting.

Some timely advice: http://lifehacker.com/top-10-tips-to-work-a-room-like-a-champ-1743564696

This is indeed important. In fact merely standing like you are confident (picture someone you feel is acting confident and stand like they do... like Superman's pose if you like) can make you *feel* more confident when you are speaking. When I have to give a speech to a room of people I have to do this lest I melt into the carpet. I'm not generally an outgoing person. I appreciate your kind words. I have often thought that some people are pretty miserable so they rail against any invention, including fire, as a step in the wrong direction. They go on one camping trip and they latch onto the idea that "everyone could be so much more simple". I wonder how miserable they would be "living off the grid" without access to an REI, and after a three day power outage in a population center.

Your assertion was that Christianity invented democracy and rights, and I provided counterexamples. Your other questions are not relevant to that.

As in all human rights declarations, the cylinder conceded certain things so the ruler could keep his head. Quite literally it described freeing the residents from a tyrannical king and ensuring their safety ("freeing their bonds" and "soothing their weariness"). It's not exactly the Declaration of Independence. What did you expect?

Check out the religious war in Sri Lanka.

Very interesting. This also accounts for how inflammation can retard mental recovery. It's not something I've heard about before.

The Athenian Greeks practiced democracy--and invented the term--long before Christ and the "Cyrus Cylinder"--the first human rights document--is from 539 BC.

I don't know what it is that sometimes gives me hope in that same regard, but I feed the trolls far too much of my time.

Remember the useful razor, "Compared to what?"

When you make a prediction, you test it. When you see evidence to the contrary to a tenet, you modify the tenet. Even for "established" evidence, it is often instructive to try to see if you can observe something new (for example, when you design a more accurate instrument or testing procedure). Only superstition is immune to contrary evidence. And, by the way, philosophy is about truth, with an emphasis on the general and fundamental nature of reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. (This part of Wikipedia's definition is decent enough to parrot here). Logic and evidence are components in the truth-seeking repertoire. It is not a hypothesis that light acts like a particle and a wave. It is already in evidence. What's being explored here is how they are different and how they are the same. These attributes are not opposite.