Investment Strategies / Mechanical Investing
No. of Recommendations: 5
No. of Recommendations: 3
Three, at most. And, there are really more than 10. How did they settle on those 10? Apparently, the Jews count 613. I think in Exodus (without looking it up), aren't there something like 14? Including not boiling a baby goat in its mother's milk?
Yes, almost all of them are not relevant today. I like both Hitchens' and Carlin's take on the Decalogue. :-)
No. of Recommendations: 3
I like both Hitchens' and Carlin's take on the Decalogue. :-)Yep. That sent me down a YouTube rabbit hole. Hitch was so good. I prefer his Decalogue.
Christopher Hitchens's Ten Commandments | Vanity Fair
https://youtu.be/v-63cTYJDCA?si=Zoq0C1RAClfDEXVgPresumably all these Christians who want these displayed also want all businesses closed and no sports on Saturday (or Sunday)?
No. of Recommendations: 8
That was fun watching. Yes, one of the things that bothers me is that they want something posted that they don't consider as a group. That's why Carter walked away from them in the end. They vehemently bear false witness. Abortion was going on during Jesus time, they used a plant to induce it - it had other uses, and is extinct now, we used it up. A big chunk of kids died in birth back then, and they still aborted, and God didn't condemn it outright, but you couldn't say godammit.
Except for "thou shalt not kill", "not bear false witness", and "not steal", it's a trite list. What kind of God forbids you to take his name in vain as a big moral lesson? Exactly what was going on when they fashioned that one? Was everyone saying. "fuck dog"?
I think I'm an atheist because I avidly devoured Fantasy and Sci Fi, so when I read the bible it fit right in, I read it as Fantasy, with a little Sci Fi mixed in. But it wasn't written well in my book, the writer wasn't my favorite author. I went to Sunday School, then I skipped out on Sunday School and went down to the clubhouse and friends and began reading Lord of the Rings. I enjoyed my friends. I think Sandy LeeLee was right when she said it's not hard to understand, "don't hurt anyone". But let's face it - our Pres is on a vengeance tour, and "kill them all" falls in line with this thinking. Ah, well,
No. of Recommendations: 0
I wonder if his rewrite has a problem. Specifically, condemning someone for their "inborn nature". I am not a psychologist, but I think some psychopaths/sociopaths are born that way. Probably(?) not most of them, but many. In which case, we can't really have that one if we are to protect the public from them (e.g. incarceration).
I hadn't seen that particular video before. But he has done similar ones.
And I still wonder how they chose which commandments. There are four versions (as Hitchens says), and at least some of them list MORE than ten.
No. of Recommendations: 2
I think I'm an atheist because I avidly devoured Fantasy and Sci Fi,...
I was into sci-fi, too. But that wasn't my reason. I started asking questions. The more I learned, the more I asked. I never got satisfying answers. I also did Sunday school for a short time. "How did they fit two of every animal in a boat?"
There wasn't a bright line, or sudden revelation. I was in college having a discussion with someone when I realized that what I was saying meant I was not a believer. Or, at least, a skeptic. When you're learning physics, especially, a lot of things in the bible don't make sense (or we know to be counter-factual).
I have since solidified my position into one of anti-theism. It's just piles and piles of facts and logical arguments against it all, and none in support of it.
No. of Recommendations: 5
I also did Sunday school for a short time. "How did they fit two of every animal in a boat?"
A good one for Sunday school is "Why did God kill all the innocent children?".
There's a childcare place near here called "Noah's Ark Daycare" lol - no children on the ark!
No. of Recommendations: 2
no children on the ark!
Yeah...they're bad enough on airplanes for 6 hours. Can you imagine 40 days on a boat?
No. of Recommendations: 1
I was into sci-fi, too. But that wasn't my reason. I started asking questions. The more I learned, the more I asked. I never got satisfying answers. I also did Sunday school for a short time. "How did they fit two of every animal in a boat?"
Sci Fi isn't my reason, Fantasy and Sci Fi stimulate you and cause you to question, and lots of discussions - including consider it a metaphor, etc. I find too many religionists have a knee jerk reaction, so I just say I'm not big on religion.
No. of Recommendations: 3
I find too many religionists have a knee jerk reaction, so I just say I'm not big on religion.
Outside of my years in academia, where such discussions were somewhat common, I find the subject rarely comes up. I had one fundy coworker that tried to convert me. He was a very good engineer, but a YEC. He said there were data I hadn't seen, or I'd believe. So, I looked at his data. I read everything he sent to me...papers, websites, etc. But I also did my own article-digging. I was not (and am not) a geologist, so needed to learn about He levels in zircon (for example). Turns out that the study he cited used measuring tools whose error bars were larger than the signal they were claiming to detect.
And this fine engineer dug his heels in and reiterated his claims and faulty data sources. Turns out, I was the honest one who genuinely sought the proof. There was none to be had. He gives lectures -so he says- about this stuff, and how the Noah story is true, and such. What's scary is that he is smart, and he sounds very convincing. You have to have a science background, and be able to find scholarly articles, to learn that he was simply wrong.
But, I am open about being atheist. It's kinda funny when a missionary comes to the door, and I declare "there probably is no god". The stunned looks on their faces is pretty uniform, and amusing. I don't rub it in anyone's face, but I don't hide it, either. And I don't use "agnostic". I am not a theist, therefore, I am an a-theist. If you say you don't know, you're an atheist.
No. of Recommendations: 2
And I don't use "agnostic". I am not a theist, therefore, I am an a-theist. If you say you don't know, you're an atheist.
I think you can be both an agnostic and an atheist, but the key difference to me is that one term is about knowledge (agnostic) and the other belief (atheist). An agnostic says, "I don't have the knowledge/evident of a god" while an atheist says, "there are no gods that I believe in." Agnostics theoretically are open to knowledge of a god if it could be provided. Atheists say that there are no gods I believe in despite what others may say they believe. Much the same in many ways, but starting from a different point.
Pete
No. of Recommendations: 2
But, I am open about being atheist.
I'm not open about being an atheist or a liberal at work due to experience. People in the sciences are more likely to not believe in God, where I was, the religionists that subscribe to perpetual persecution are present, and you want to stay on everyone's good side. So avoiding the conversation, giving neutral answers is the best way to handle it. I told a few work friends that became friends after work too, but they knew better than to mention it. Work environments differ.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Agnostics theoretically are open to knowledge of a god if it could be provided. Atheists say that there are no gods I believe in despite what others may say they believe. Much the same in many ways, but starting from a different point.
I know some people use that distinction. Often because they don't want to be thought of as "atheist". I hold to the position of most prominent atheists that you are either a theist, or not.** If you're not, then put the 'a' in front (i.e. atheist). That is not a knowledge claim, IMO. Most atheists, confronted with solid evidence, would change their minds. Perhaps I am more careful than most in that I don't say there is no god. I say there probably is no god, and certainly no evidence -yet- for one. If I make a definitive assertion, the burden of proof is on me. As it stands, the theists are making the definitive assertion(s), so the burden is on them.
**There's also a deist, who thinks there is something out there. So really, there is 'theist', 'atheist', and 'deist".
No. of Recommendations: 1
What is the word for someone who has no opinion on whether or not there is a creator. In my view, the fact that the universe exists at all is outlandish. Either origin story, creation vs spontaneous ignition, (not the evidence supported early expansion, but the instant before), is fantastic, incomprehensible, and unbelievable.
The observable universe gets "bigger" each time we look farther out; the total universe is probably much bigger than we can see by several times; multiple universes possibly; an inexplicable quantum world...
The only sense I can make is; "we are the universe contemplating itself", when we take time to do it. I can find no purpose to this though there may be one. Perhaps clarity will unfold though the course of time. Perhaps there is no purpose other than constructs we care to create.
Learn to live and thrive amid the confusion? Ok!
fd
No. of Recommendations: 4
What is the word for someone who has no opinion on whether or not there is a creator.
If you aren't actively a theist, by most definitions you are "a-theist".
If the universe didn't exist, we wouldn't be here to contemplate it. (The Anthropic Principle) I do agree that Event One is fantastic, whatever it was. I suspect that someday we'll know. We're still collecting data and doing math.
the total universe is probably much bigger than we can see by several times
Almost certainly. Due to expansion, numerous objects 'disappear' from view every year. The speed of the expansion causes them to be unviewable. Which is a weird concept, but that's what appears to be happening.
Learn to live and thrive amid the confusion? Ok!
Good attitude. That's really all we can do anyway. But we are curious creatures, and we will continue to strive for understanding. I like knowing the latest thinking about such matters, even if it doesn't affect my daily life.
No. of Recommendations: 2
What is the word for someone who has no opinion on whether or not there is a creator.
I'd use agnostic for that - "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."
It's more accurate than atheist and much less likely to conjure up images of what some call "militant atheists". Peace. :)
They call what the universe expanded from a singularity, and tell us it's smaller than the period on this page. One theory is that the expansion accelerates into a "Big Rip" and the universe is torn apart, the other is we slow, reverse and collapse back into a singularity. Either way the universe ends.
And we're doing this from contemplating what we can see, and math.
No. of Recommendations: 2
I feel compelled to acknowledge awareness of an evolving experience of existence that includes perception of what appears to be an expanding spacetime environment.
Best scientific efforts to date indicate that this commonly observable spacetime environment is composed of about 5% matter comprised of increasingly complexifying nuclei, atoms, molecules, cells, organisms, planetary systems and galaxies dispersed within a near empty cosmos thought by most physicists today to have originated in a singularity about 13.7 billion earth years ago.
At the most minute level of observation atomic matter is composed of persisting protons, neutrons and electrons that, in turn, consist of infinitesimal quarks ephemerally flickering in and out of existence below the limb of innate human perception. Physicists characterize this minuscule realm with quantum field theory and the macroscopically complexifying perceptual realm with Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. It's noteworthy that within a spacetime context the atomic infrastructure of our material environment consists of infinitesimal quarks effervescing within a vast vacuum of erstwhile nothingness.
This all leads me to regard present perception of expanding spacetime evolution as eternally emergent within the infinite potential of erstwhile nothingness. That's tough to wrap one's head around. We know there's [b]not[/b] nothing or we wouldn't be here talking about it. Hence the reference to 'erstwhile nothingness'. This is surely epistemic, but it seems to me that the alternative to a vacuum of absolute nothingness is infinite potential (any and all possibilities), hosting all manner of organically evolving experience, inevitably including us. And, given the ephemerality of fundamental quarks underlying all of physical 'reality', experience is ubiquitously emergent now. Spacetime is a framework born of experience to make sense of it. To paraphrase Einstein, 'time is what keeps everything from happening at once'.
I see finite existence as organically evolving experience ubiquitously negotiating the infinite potential of erstwhile nothingness. Call it what you will. I prefer to avoid the term 'god' owing to its inclusion in widespread, largely antiquated, belief systems – a generic placeholder for absence of understanding.
Tom
