Koroviev

1. Are you saying that the structure of these religions is not similar if not the same as that of the state? That these religions advocate freedom and free markets and using reason and evidence rather than simply following what someone says because they said it? Thats the point i was arguing. In these ways and more I'm sure the state and religion is similar if not exactly the same. None of ehat you have presented has countered that. 3. I never said there was no value in religion simply that religion is wrong. We know this because that which is not wrong (true) is that which is supported by reason and evidence. Religious beliefs are not supported by reason and evidence therefore they cannot be true. It does not take years of philosophy to figure that out just a logic 101 course. I'm not entirely certain but i think your last sentence said that we are holograms. Unless you have some light source that I appear to be missing I dont think this is supported by much reason or evidence either. Also, if you think you are a hologram I would absolutely love to watch you and 2pac debate after his next concert. 4. None of those definitions say a belief is supported by reason and evidence and most say the opposite so I'm not sure how this supports your argument. How long does a tradition or culture have to be around until it becomes correct? 5. Are you saying that either people must become full time philosophers or they need religion to know how to live their lives? That seems like a bit of a false dichotomy. I'm not a full time philosopher or religious and I'm not killing people or stealing things.

1. Taoism I don't know enough to disagree with, although a quick look at the wiki finds that some sects do worship Laozi which would fall under the argument I was making, however there are some people who say some of the earliest atheists were taoists, but I don't think we can say this was due to reason and evidence. Buddhists have the Tibetan government in exile which I believe can be considered a state itself, also the worship of buddha and the dalai lama again fall into the following of a divine being. Quakers are christians so....divine being there. My argument here was not that religions are evil and teach evil things simply that most, if not all, religions are structured in the same way as the state. One "being" (or group of beings) with power, knowledge, etc. and the rest of us can only hope to grovel at their feet. 2. ok? 3. ok? so what parts of the bible am I not supposed to believe in? or maybe it's the muslims who are continuously murdering people who are correct? the buddhists who rape children and get other people to fight their battles for them? No, what you, OP, and probably every other religious person who comes here are saying is that we should ignore all of the really really bad parts of religion and just pick and choose the good parts. If I claim to follow the scientific method, but only choose to use the parts where I get to come up with a hypothesis and say that hypothesis is correct am I really following the scientific method? Unfortunately it's a package deal and if you're picking and choosing you're making something entirely new up. 4. belief: : a feeling of being sure that someone or something exists or that something is true : a feeling that something is good, right, or valuable : a feeling of trust in the worth or ability of someone If you want to make a new definition of belief that's great but if I'm making the argument you can't really change the definition of the words I'm using and say I'm wrong. Also, the Nazis had a tradition and culture of killing Jews if your argument is correct then they would have been in the right as well. 5. I don't think anyone here has ever said everyone must become a philosopher that would be ridiculous. Do you need myths and stories to make you believe that a stove is hot, or that if you jump off a building you will hurt yourself? No, because those things are based off of reason and evidence. You need myths and traditions to make people believe in things that aren't actually true such as george washington and the government, and the bible and god. Things where all reason and evidence are counter to what you are supposed to believe.

Not an argument

part of the problem is you completely blew past any of the rational and evidence based arguments by trying to turn yourself into a victim and instead attempted to make us believe that you are different from anyone else (just like pretty much every other christian or religious person who comes on here does). Philosophy is based on reason an evidence. Therefore you cannot have philosophy with the caveat of: There's this one thing that we believe in that we have no reason or evidence for. Also, anarchy + all powerful ruler....kind of a contradiction.

1. religion goes hand in hand with the state. one says there is a divine ruler (god) who created us and tells us how to live and what to do and how and what to think. the other says there is a divine ruler (the state) who controls how we live tells us what to think and what to do, etc. etc. 2. religion (in the normal sense with god/gods, etc.) is incorrect. this has been shown many times in Stef's podcasts and on this board (there are several shows and posts showing the irrationality of religious people) 3. religion (in the normal sense with god/gods, etc.) is the use of force. this is shown in several ways. If I don't believe I am eternally damned, the bible says if I don't believe you (as a believer) are required to stone me to death, several times throughout the bible god murders people and required people to murder other people (not so moral) 4. a belief is something that is claimed to be true without evidence or rationality. Both things that are encouraged here, and required for philosophy (and science, and math, and the free market, etc. etc.) And to answer your second question, there is something like that it's called philosophy, but it's not a religion.

Thanks again Blueberries, my wife and I always really look forward to your input. The things you've brought up is exactly the reason I wanted to start this topic and things my wife and I have spent a lot of time talking about. I'm curious though, what was your relationship with your mom like? Did she work as well or was she a stay at home/homeschool mom? Do you think that may have made any difference? Did you ever get the opportunity to go with your dad (to experience how boring the travel actually is? ) I know, for me at least travel consists of working all day, going back to the hotel working some more, calling the wife, then going to bed. Not all that exciting. Also, was there ever a time where your father got to negotiate his travel schedule? Another positive with my company is that we spend time negotiating who travels where and when. As I said my biggest concern is that they may come to feel abandoned, but I don't know that there is another situation at this point in time that would give me more time overall with them. Yes! yes and yes! My wife and I absolutely love this idea, so doing this! Thanks AccuTron! Thanks Tyne, I hadn't thought about the effects of car seats on babies' physiology, but it makes sense as I'm sure meeting the regulations are way higher on the priority list than what's actually good for the baby. Gave us more to research Leaving my wife alone is another thing I'm definitely concerned about and have brought it up to her multiple times, however she has a lot of experience (practically raising her 3 sisters) and knows it will be tough but is certain that she can handle it. The problem with taking them on plane trips is more personal costs for us than there are in driving trips. They'll definitely be able to come along every once in a while, but all of us flying that much would really start to add up. Thanks Kurtis, I meant both/either new career or a new job. every other company that I know of in my field not only requires travel but when you're not traveling you are in at the office. As I mentioned above, that's one of the huge benefits I currently have, when I'm not at the road I'm at home so, outside of meetings, I can do the work whenever it is most convenient for me. Another viable option would be to switch careers to something related, however it is likely with my skill set that this would mean an office job where I may be home every night but likely would mean less time home overall and probably much less time with my family, not to mention added stress of a new job huge potential for working with people I don't like as much and/or are less family centrist, etc., etc. Starting my own business in this field seems even less viable at this point for similar reasons as starting a new career as well as that would mean even less family time, it's a field that requires HUGE amounts of experience, which I am still gaining, and all around it's seemingly unrealistic at this point. If you come across any research on abandonment/poor attachment please do share There hasn't really been a resolution at this point it seems like they're kind of just waiting to see what happens....but they've also had a lot of really bad things happen between their parents so unfortunately they've been distracted by that lately. She has decided to try breastfeeding, but between their purchasing habits and their house they've cornered themselves into needing two jobs to pay for everything. Sorry about the delayed replies but you guys have given us a lot to discuss and think about. We really appreciate all of the input!! Cheers!

Nah, I don't think it's about proving a point. It's about the ability to say whatever he wants. How is he supposed to a show on the truth about ______ (insert "crazy murderer," suicidal maniac, etc.) and talk about the effects of SSRI's on that persons life following an ad for xanax? How could he do a show about the false "science" behind AGW that gets interrupted by Bill Nye the climate guy talking about the 7 stages of climate denial? Also, what demographic is he supposed to be selling? What happens if he becomes dependent on ad revenue because donations drop and then one of the advertisers decide to drop? Would it have the same effect if one of Stef's speeches was interrupted by an ad? No, the value for value model allows for the freedom to do shows that your audience wants to see. NOT what makes the most ad sense. It's the difference between Stef creating a great product for you and you being Stef's product for the advertisers.

Yeah although his math threw me off a little bit though because if you have the same data moving through multiple pipes it doesn't increase the amount of data, also not a huge fan of his using the pipe metaphor. If you think about it like water, if you pour a gallon of water through 10 pipes you don't magically have 10 gallons of water...

If I understand correctly it'd be more along the lines of changing the way radio waves work so people can come up with different ways to use them.

Very cool, basically he's come up with a transport system that allows the internet backbone to be decentralized (internet anarchist?). Right now we can functionally only use a network in a single way. IPFS gives the ability to come up with creative solutions to solve problems we currently have, and to come up with more creative solutions to the current way things are handled. Just like how the government currently builds and "maintain" roads, free market allows us to come up with creative solutions to building and maintaining roads. IPFS gives us that ability on the web. There are still some fundamental issues due to the way people currently use the internet that still need to be worked through before this is a viable solution, i.e. source of truth, security, ease of use, bandwidth, etc. but I imagine those are all extremely similar to "who's going to build the roads" questions that anarchists get.

Can you be a good (peaceful) parent when your work requires you to travel? My wife and I are preparing to have our first child and as most parents-to-be we have our concerns. One of the concerns I've really been struggling with pertains to my job, and I was hoping to get some FDR insight. I work for a small information security consulting company. Basically, there are four of us who travel around the U.S. to different businesses and perform a variety of services pertaining to information security. Although being away from my wife (and our future child) is definitely a big downside the job also has a LOT of very big upsides. 1. Travel is only one week chunks. This means I am always home on the weekends. The goal is one week home one week on the road, although it doesn't always work out this way it generally evens itself out. 2. When I am not traveling I am working from home and for the most part am able to set my own schedule. 3. The owners have a very "spouse-centered" view. Basically they know (from experience) if the wife ain't happy something needs to change. They are very family oriented and understand that there are more important things than getting the work done. 4. Because of this job my wife will get to be a stay-at-home mother and we will get to home school our child. On top of that one of my bosses home schooled his three kids so it's a nice resource for us. 5. It's encouraged to have my wife (and baby) travel with me. This is a little more challenging on plane trips but for any driving trips they're already renting me a car and a hotel room so there's no reason for them not to come with. 6. I've already talked to the owners about cutting down my travel for at least the first 6 months after the baby is born. This means, ideally, no more than 1 week a month of travel. 7. It really is a fantastic job working for and with really great people, good benefits, etc. etc. My concerns: 1. a week seems like a really long time to be away from my family 2. we don't have any family around to help my wife out when I'm not around. 3. Is my child going to feel abandoned with me gone so much I really do feel like the benefits overall outweigh the costs, especially considering what it would take to start a new career at this point in time and everything that would go along with that, it seems likely that that would give me even less time/energy to put into parenting. What are your thoughts? Are my concerns valid or am I just getting nervous about being a parent? Do you have any suggestions on how to best connect with my child when I'm on the road? Can I make up for the "lost" time on the weekends? Will our child grow up thinking a Skype call is it's father?

Lol I just saw this post....mic is short for microphone....not Michael

First off I've gotta say I can take no credit for this analogy. I brought up r/k on a subreddit and this was how one of the commenters looked at it. I just thought it was too good not to share... "Business has known this for a while. There are also two strategies there. High end, high overhead products and low end, low overhead products. Playing the middle ends in disaster. And there is room for both. High end is hard because so much is required and ever more is required to maintain differentiation. Low end is hard because your product is typically fungible or nearly-fungible so it is all up to lowering production costs. Both reproductive strategies will always exist as well as political and business. It really is a principle of life, in all arenas or areas of focus." The more cheap or low end products there are the less inclined people are to buy the higher quality items. The only part that I would disagree on is that businesses consciously know this.

Principles are concepts, you are not a concept you would be a substance. The computer you are using is not a concept it would be a substance by your definition.

What? Because I know that concepts are not material substances means that I don't think there are any material substances? Don't you think that's a false dichotomy...

Yeah, and I knew this going into it, although i still hoped it would be different on this board. It did really help me, and I hope others as well, to grasp the concept that you can't rationalize with someone about that which they did not come to rationally.

Ah, gotcha so when i stop talking to you you will cease to exist.

I feel like you're going further and further away from my above questions, which is Ok I supposed because I asked them knowing that there are no answers to them (i.e. the entire point of this discussion). Principles are concepts that explain reality. The principle of gravity explains why things fall. The principle itself does not exist independently of gravity or independently of human thought, simply an explanation of how things are in reality. Just as the square-cube principle explains that as a shape grows in size it's volume grows faster than it's surface area. It is an explanation of reality not some "substance" that exists independently. As I said before in philosophy and math and science we apply those explanations universally (meaning in all cases as opposed to just inside this universe). Outside of that is beliefs.

I'm not sure what your definition of substance is, you seem to have been using it in a different way than it is normally used. Also, we aren't talking about whether or not substances exist.

I am a monad but also made up of monads as is everything else? You can't just make a claim that a "race of principles are proven to exist by science" that doesn't mean anything and you are redefining terms again (which is getting really annoying). What is a race of principles? What science proves that there are races of principles? Are there different races of principles competing for resources? Principles are concepts and concepts do not exist independently of the mind. Concepts explain reality. How do you not see the circularity in your statement? The rest of that is more non arguments, and neither statements answer the questions of what is the null hypothesis and show me proof, you simply said that they exist because they exist exactly like i said you would.

None of that is an argument. you are just making up special categories for monads and for gods without any proof or rationality and labeling it truth. How would you know if monads did not exist? How would you know if god did not exist (and saying because we would not be here is not proof, we would not be here if there wasn't oxygen but that's not how we know there is oxygen)? Show me a monad. Show me any effect that a god has had on the universe (also here you can't just say a god created the universe for the same reasons as above). If you can do none of the above it falls in the realm of belief not truth.

No, I did not say that gravity only exists in our senses I said concepts are created in our minds. Gravity is an effect of mass it does not exist independently of mass. There is no substance called gravity that exists where there is no mass, just like there is no consciousness that exists without mass. The concept of gravity came from Isaac Newton, but the concept is not a substance that existed outside of Isaac Newton (yes it does now because isaac newton is not around and the concept is still around, but if no one is around thr concept is not around). Our senses give us information and our minds interpret that information. We know that our minds can interpret things incorrectly, like the ruler in the cup of water, thats why we have principles called rationally consistent and empirically supported. As to where it all came from, I don't care because it does not have an effect on my daily life. On top of that if your definition of god is only what originated the universe then sure that could possibly be true, but again there is no proof for that, and definitely not what most people say is god, not what the bible says is god, and does not mean anything else that goes along with that. Also, you cannot say we know things are universal when you are arguing that things are not universal. Universal means there are no exceptions.

if by principles you mean the monads that make up everything then there is as much proof for them existing as there is for a god to exist. If by principles you are using the generally accepted definition (above) then those are concepts so they came from humans. And again even if there was some being (you can call it whatever you want) that started the entire process to get reality to where it is now that does not mean it is outside of principled universality, it does not mean it is not subject to the same universals everything else is, it does not mean it cares for us, it does not mean it should be worshiped, it doesn't even mean that being is still around.

Here's an article i came across this morning. It's a political survey of silicon valley's elites trying to figure out their political leanings. http://readwrite.com/2015/11/06/silicon-valley-politics https://medium.com/the-ferenstein-wire/silicon-valley-s-political-endgame-summarized-1f395785f3c1 The author is attempting to paint this great picture of tech founders reshaping the democratic party into more libertarian ideas mixed with the lefts love of big government. Reading through it I get the feeling that this really can't be a good thing. It seems to me like the tech elites are simply trying to have the best of both worlds. Where they get both the benefits of free trade so their companies can make billions of dollars, and they gat the massive government to enforce their PC ideals. What do you think? Is this the happy medium, or yet another sign of the end? If nothing else I definitely think it sheds some light on how little these companies everyone loves so much care about us.

Why is the only conclusion god? What makes god different from the "trivial and absurd," aside from in your mind god created the universe and santa did not? the point is that they are all nonsense because they are all fundamentally the same. I've made my case, but once again we are going to come to a standstill because I am applying principles universally whereas you are applying them to everything except god without any proof to make that exception and refusing to see the contradiction in that.