Liberty

Dude, you didn't even watch it! Oh yeah, by the way - it does mean people get their morality from another source rather than the Bible - God. ;) That people claim miracles are happening isn't news to me (it's always conveniently impossible to verify, or un-repeatable under lab conditions -- there are labs offering big money to anyone who can make anything unexplainable happen there). This is storytelling, not evidence. I have better uses for my time. But I've still got this bridge I need to get rid of!

I've got a bridge for sale, any takers?

It's not random, it's like the anthropic principle, if things had turned out otherwise we might be talking about the prophet Mustafa or Roland or whatever. But that doesn't make it magical. Prophets are a dime a dozen. Out of all of them, most were forgotten and a few became very popular (through wars and indoctrination of illiterate people and children - for the longest time priests didn't even talk in a language that their audience understood). You can see how religions are created in real-time today by looking at the Mormon church and other sects, or even with how splintered christianity is. Don't you find it weird that UFO and paranormal sightings went down a lot since everybody has a camera in their pocket? Do you think that if 2000 years ago we had cameras and literate people who didn't believe in all kinds of crazy stuff that things would have turned out otherwise? Go ask a remote tribe of illiterate people never exposed to science what kind of stuff they believe in... Why don't we have blood raining from the sky and people being resurrected (like Lazarus, which apparently was no big deal) these days? Anyway, if that kind of very weak sauce convinces you ("I don't know of too many crazy ideas that have stayed around for 2000 years." Really?), nothing I can ever write will have any impact, so I might as well stop here. Next we'll be arguing over thousands-of-years old supposed eye-witness accounts of raining frogs, Noah's ark, and Jesus walking on water... Finding a dude's bones doesn't mean anything. We could have a box full of selfies of Jesus, and that wouldn't make him a deity. I'll leave you with a really fun read: http://www.evilbible.com/ A compilation of all the evil things in the bible (rape, human sacrifice, slavery, lies, murder, genocide, sexism, infanticide, wars, etc), most committed by or under direct orders from god. Makes me scared when someone says they get their morality from there (but if they can pick & choose, doesn't it mean that they really get their morality from somewhere else? Maybe a place accessible to non-believers? oh boy).

If you define "god" as "someone who can write genetic code", then yes. If you define "god" the way most people usually define it, then no.

We've already created a bunch of new species and edited DNA. We're creators of a lot of the species on Earth. That's what the breeding of plants and animals is. You don't need a DNA sequencer - though that helps a lot - you just have to select for certain traits at the macro scale in offsprings and then breed those again and again, each time selecting for the desired traits. Originally an ear of corn was probably less than an inch long, but if you seed your corn from the biggest ears of corns you can find over and over again, over time you only have big ears of corns. Then if you cross breed some species, you get brand new species. All the different species of dogs all come from common wolf ancestors, but they've been selected for different things (hunting, cuteness, watching sheep, war, speed). That's why cats can be so damn cute; they've been selected by humans primarily for cuteness and catching small vermin (cuteness wouldn't help them survive in nature, but it helps them survive with humans). Domesticated horses were selected for being tame with humans, unlike wild zebras which are dangerous as hell. If the next step interests you, check out synthetic biology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_biology Some are even talking about creating life forms that don't use the DNA code shared by the rest of life on earth (pointing to a common ancestor, btw) but a brand new code (not TAGC). Craig Venter has been working on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Venter#Synthetic_genomics

Dolly's a clone. Identical twins are clones too. I'd say that dogs have a more interesting take on it; humans took over natural selection and bred them from wolves for various purposes, selecting the traits they liked. They've been modified a lot more than Dolly, which is identical to the sheep she was cloned from, like a twin.

I'm not certain, I just need evidence to change my mind. I haven't found it so far. But if I find something convincing, I'll update. Belief should be based on what is most probabilistically likely to be true based on evidence, not on faith. Faith is the mind killer. So far, what I'm seeing is consistent with a world without magic/the supernatural. The reason why I don't find the argument "The universe is so weird, hence anything is possible" convincing is twofold. First, the universe isn't weird. The weirdness is in our minds. By that I mean, the universe is exactly as it is, it's our map of the territory that is incomplete, or it doesn't match how our intuition tells us things should work because we have evolved in a certain environment and we aren't equipped with intuition to understand things outside of that environment (the very big -- relativistic physics -- or the very small -- quantum mechanics -- or more than 3 dimensions -- but we're pretty good at understanding middle world, the scale at which we operate). A lot of things used to be great mysteries, but now we understand them (the sun and rainfall used to mystify people if you go back enough!). Secondly, whether a lot of things are possible or not doesn't point in a specific direction. Only evidence can point you one way over another. Without evidence, how can you decide which thing it is? Why not polytheism over monotheism? Why not an evil god over a benevolent one? Why not an interventionist god over a non-interventionist one? Why not a divine teapot orbiting pluto? Why not invisible dragons? Midichlorians? You can't say "anything is possible hence my own personal conception of the supernatural must be true". Where did you get that conception in the first place (go up the whole chain to the original source), and how do you know it isn't just made up? Hence evidence. Still waiting for evidence. In the meantime, we have a lot of evidence for a mechanistic world from physics, biology, cosmology, neuroscience, etc. There are lots of gaps in our knowledge, but gaps are just that -- stuff we don't know yet -- there's no reason to postulate a "god hiding in the gaps" anymore than we've found a god in yesterday's gaps that have since been filled.

So you basically think these things might be true because they are widespread? You do know they became popular over centuries by military conquest, threat of force, and the indoctrination of children, right? Not exactly because of convincing arguments (where are those arguments? I'm still waiting for them).. I really wish you had answered my question, though. Unless you do believe in Zeus, Odin, and Hachiman, in which case I'm still asking "why?".

The conclusion of the war was arrived at when the Allies began targeting women and children directly. They became the primary targets. Killed by the hundreds of thousands. On purpose. Bin Laden did that to a few thousand, and it was called... terrorism. You'd think that if an omniscient and omnipotent being wanted to intervene, it wouldn't be after tens of millions of deaths.. But hey, as long as we're making stuff up without any evidence, who's counting? Reminds me of the Epicurus line: “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

stahley, I have a question for you. Let's pick a few random names here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deities Let's say: Zeus, Odin, and Hachiman. I'm guessing you don't believe in these gods. Can you tell us why please?

As I already said, this isn't what we're talking about. This is a power struggle between certain groups; most often between different religions, but in the case of China and the Soviet Union between ideologies. China tries to control religion in the same way they try to control the internet, because they don't want to share power, not because they "don't believe in the internet". Early christian church was persecuted because they were a small powerless sect, like thousands of others at the time (which you can clearly see by how many things the christians borrowed from others and just renamed or claimed their own -- divine revelation yeah sure), and the romans had their own powerful religion(s), they weren't exactly doing it in the name of rational free-thinking...

Unlike Liberty, Eric, and rk, you aren't really bringing anything to this conversation. Now, if you could do something besides sling insults, I'll be happy to respond. I don't see an insult in what was said. It's an accurate description of what is claimed by many people along with an opinion, very politely stated.

There's more than one way for things to be ridiculous, y'know. If you read the rest of what I wrote, you'll see that I think it's ridiculous not because these people don't exist (though they are a small group), but because of the wider context. Focusing on this and claiming that it is a problem when it so clearly doesn't even rank within the margin of error of other kinds of militantism through the ages and at the present time is a way to divert attention from the more important issues. Wake me up when non-believers are frequently beheading people on video and starting wars in the name of forcing others to stop believing.

That's not what I said. I'm sure "a lot" of them are.

Just to further complicate things: Unlike in hollywood movies, most people that we consider very evil don't see themselves as the bad guys. They don't "just want to see the world burn", they don't do what they do because they don't care about society and about others. In their minds, they are righting wrongs, they are building a better world, they are punishing those who deserve it, they are re-establishing order, they are fulfilling a destiny for a certain favored group, etc. If people oppose them and it leads to war, it's the fault of people on the other side for not getting it... I don't think Hitler set out to kill as many people are he could just because he liked death and destruction. I think he really believed that this was about stopping the humiliation and ruin brought on by external forces through the Versailles treaty, it was about rooting out what he thought were corrupting influences from his great civilization (jews, gays, impures of all kinds, people who thought the wrong way, whatever) and building a long-lasting utopia that would be a better place to live for the chosen race, etc. I'm sure Stalin thought he had to take over and forcefully rearrange everything in society because it was the only way to bring about his own vision of a utopia (following in the footsteps of previous revolutionaries like Lenin), and if some people stood in the way and couldn't get on with the program, well, they were a sad reality that had to be dealt with for the greater good, collateral damage, a price worth paying, etc. Ossama Bin Laden probably saw himself as defending his side in this clash of civilization (god said that infidels could be converted or killed, so it wasn't really a sin to him, right?) and I'm sure he justified his abominable actions by pointing to "wrongs" that had to be "righted", an eye for an eye, etc. So while I think that sociopaths can be a problem, non-sociopaths can be just as dangerous if their heads are filled with nonsense that makes them do terrible things while thinking they're doing good - attachment problems or not - and if enough people think along similar lines and are ready to help them achieve their goals (nobody rules alone, even if they get most of the glory/blame in the end), some for personal gains, some out of ideological fervor. As I said, there's probably a lot of people who are more extreme in their beliefs and intentions than Hitler ever was, but they aren't getting anywhere because they don't have a receptive context. Sometimes you get the wrong person at the wrong time in the wrong place...

Interesting perspective: http://qz.com/248890/a-comedians-confession-the-more-successful-i-became-the-more-i-wanted-to-kill-myself/

I think you can be a loner and still be very much part of society, even if in a more intellectualized way. Even loners usually have families, and they can read and be part of the world through the arts and such. I might not spend my evenings at church or in a crowded pub, but I certainly don't feel outside of society and its rules. In fact, on average, introverted people are probably a lot less dangerous than extroverts... I think other factors are more determinant for whether someone will turn out to be a danger to society. In Hitler's case, he didn't do it all himself, he needed a receptive society and a very special context. There are a bunch of Hitler disciples all over the world today trying to convince people to start a new reich, but they aren't getting anywhere because the soil isn't fertile. Hitler wasn't supernatural, though he was certainly the wrong person at the wrong time.

I just don't understand the focus on loners here. As I said, you could make a list just as long of very social people, part of groups, who did things just as bad as loners. What I'm saying is that this is not the important variable. It's just a more visible variable because the media will point it out when someone is a loner, but they won't when he isn't because that's not out of the ordinary. In fact, maybe if more people were better able to be comfortable by themselves a bit more, we'd get less peer pressure horrors and "I was just following the herd".

I can't tell if you're joking or not, Eric. I'm not joking. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1303804/Adolf-Hitler-loner-rear-area-pig-according-WWI-regiment.html That's not the part that I wasn't sure about. I wasn't sure if you really think that that's the root of the problem. ie. Make a psychopath go to church to be part of a group, and things will turn out fine (let's forget for now all the psychopaths with delusions of being instruments of god).

I can't tell if you're joking or not, Eric. You could also find a bunch of greats who were loners, and a bunch of horrible people/world leaders who were enthusiastic social animals (in fact, I'd say that to be at the head of a state, it's pretty hard to be a real loner - Stalin and Hitler had to weave a great social web around them to grab and keep power and spent their time at rallies, doing speeches, in meetings with ministers and generals, etc. Not exactly loners.). Street gangs and the mafia are very social, apparently (very religious too). What does make a difference is teaching people to think for themselves and not blindly follow authority, and to stop persecuting people because they are different.

I've been patiently monitoring this thread like a Mike Godwin, fascinated by its length despite it being off-topic. But my faith is restored: Godwin's Law is fulfilled. You missed the source, though: http://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/general-discussion/drugs-and-prostitution/msg183926/#msg183926

http://www.skepticink.com/tippling/2014/03/03/a-great-myth-about-atheism-hitlerstalinpol-pot-atheism-atrocity/ http://freethoughtnation.com/were-stalin-hitler-and-pol-pot-atheists/ http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/hitlerstalin.html http://atheistwiki.wikispaces.com/Hitler+was+an+atheist!+So+was+Stalin! Most of the regimes that claimed to be atheistic just wanted to remove the power of the church so they didn't have to share, and they replaced that with a cult of personality around the dictator/regime (another kind of religion). They weren't exactly promoters of rational free-thinking and trying to win by reasoned argument (what matters is what you do, not how you call it). It was about power games, and when you dig you find that they - and almost all of their followers and predecessors - were religious, like the population in general... On top of this, I'd say it's an interesting double-standard by religious people to discount all the atrocities committed by religious people but try to highlight those committed by supposedly non-believers. Anyway.. I often hear the argument that "religion does more good than harm". I think that's arguable; maybe today it does less harm in parts of the world where it is less powerful (in other words, it didn't choose to be defanged) and still does a lot of harm where it is very powerful (the middle-east is a good example). I think that if religious leaders really had their way everywhere, we're live in theocracies, dissenters would be crushed (most scientists), and we'd be much worst off. They don't call the medieval period the dark ages for nothing... But even if for the sake of argument we say that religion does more good than harm, that, in no way, does make it any more true. The myth of Santa Claus or the tooth fairy might do more good than harm, but that's not an argument you can use in favor of them being true. If people get benefits from belonging to shared-interest groups and talking about ethics, it's very possible to create groups that do this without having to talk about the holy ghost. In fact, that's one of the great thing about the internet; people can find each other when they couldn't before (this forum is an example). “We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. [Vishnu, Thor, Zeus, etc] Some of us just go one god further.”

The whole argument about militant atheists is ridiculous. For centuries your life would be ruined for just saying that you didn't believe in the supernatural. Basically all kids were indoctrinated from a young age, if not by their parents, by the schools. Wars were fought on religious grounds and all world leaders had to repeatedly proclaim their allegiance to the right religion (which varied depending on where they were). Pretty much all religions have a strong foundation of proselytism and of public demonstrations (putting recognizable buildings in the most visible places, having their members wearing some kind of uniform and putting various distinguishing symbols everywhere, etc). But now that a few atheists finally can speak out publicly and try to explain their logic with people rather than threaten them with eternal torture or indoctrinating them when they are too young to reason, oh boy, it's a problem! :-X It's a framing technique; if you can't argue with the ideas, you attack the bearer of the ideas. Trying to paint atheists as "shrill", "militant", "radicals", etc... It's basically conceding defeat that if the world was really full of the supernatural, real convincing evidence for it wouldn't be so impossible to find and we could talk about that instead, and the old texts wouldn't have to be constantly reinterpreted and parts of them dropped over time as we learn better because that's not what a divine revelation is supposed to be.

To each their own. If you don't think you can identify good businesses and good management, you certainly shouldn't put value on those attributes, I agree. Personally, I think I can sometimes tell (a lot goes in the "too hard" pile). I may be right or I may be wrong, but for better or worse, the past few years have convinced me that business and management quality paramount if I want to hold for the long term and sleep well at night. It's just my style, and I'm sure you're doing very well with yours. You keep talking about temporary drops in price. Berkshire has been down more than 50% a bunch of times. So what? I really don't care if TDG or VRX slows down once in a while and Mr. Market becomes really depressive because they missed analyst targets. They aren't serial stock emitters needing a high share price to do what they do. They aren't in capital-intensive cyclical businesses. Competitors aren't breathing down their necks, compressing their margins. All that volatility will have meant nothing in 5 years as long as the fundamentals stay strong and capital is allocated well, which I have every reason to believe they will. And I never liked POST. It's not like I'm just buying a random basket of acquisitive companies. I specifically like a few because of their specific businesses, models and managers.

What do you think is wrong with AIG right now?