Do you feel like the civilization you live in as a positive effect to prevent this crisis?
If the civilization I live in collapse, that would be an harsh chaos for us, but for climate and therefore future generations I really think it would be a positive event…
Now that you say it, it truely works. And look, for tabaco, before the poors were smoking and dieing of the consequences of it while evil rich were getting rich by selling them poison. And so it was the richs'fault!
Thanks to taxes, poors keep smoking and they still die of it, and rich seller still make money out of it. But now the fault is on the poors who are smokers...
Also, I would like to suggest heavy high taxe on sugar and sweet products so that blackmarket could keep growing. And since we now buy cigarets from illegal drug dealers, why not also buy from them our candies and sodas? It gives back some money to (the richest one of the) poor neighbohoods without direct intervention in the economy.
Education and program for healthy behaviour accessible even for poors would be so wrong: the richest would make less money and pass for the bad guys…
It is not needingly the same. You may prefer a given economical system because you think it better for some reason. Yet with the demonstration an other system would satisfy you better, you could change your mind. That would "just" require a strong rational demonstration.
Religious faith is not rational. It is not based on proof, but purely on feelings... And greatly on the fact all the efforts made for the faith would have beel made for nothing if the faith is admitted false, and therefore the cost seems too high for the believer. So the fact nothing may prove the object of faith becomes a test of faith that justify it.
Yet you also have some rational believes. Even on simple things such as the best way to wash your hands. Should someone demonstrate a better way to do it, we would doubt at first, but if the explaination is clear and proven, we would adopt this new way. And we would not feel a pain at changing. I think this absence of pain is a mark of rational belief.
It sounds to me as a failure for the education system. They probably didn't deserve to die of believing in lies they could have rejected if they had received a good education in terms of critical thinking…
Touching your own feels different than others, as you have both sides feelings at once.
But should you in a double blind test grab lets say 500 butts, with no other clue than your hand on their cheeks, how correctly would you guess which butt is male and which is female?
Companies use windows at work, because it was used in school. Rather than adapt employees to Linux, better pay for windows (many go for very old and dangerous versions to spare money, and that threaten economy, but it is cheaper).
If workers know Linux, companies would make them work on Linux, rather than pay windows and adapt workers to windows.
As long as Linux is more likely to prevent massive hacks of companies'datas, the gouvernment should push for Linux at school in order to push companies toward their own safety...
Would it be possible (legally) to make a new version of GPL stating that code generated by AI trained on the GPL copy lefted code would have to respect the GPL as well?
But is him the creator of the world we live in? Or is someone else the origine of this pain?
The fall is to punish humans because their ancestor many generations ago acted wrong... But why are innocent baby animals punished for that? Or have their ancestors sinned too?
I am sorry, but it is hard for me to see here any kind of justice. How do you define evil in a way to distinguish it from the god?
Just accepting many gods rather than just one; each with their own power and personalities... like in old paganisms... it is far more convincing to me. None of the producted texts are absolute truth, just a poetic view according to the dream given by the servant of one of the gods: of course it is not exact, so proving it wrong brings nothing...
Responsabilities are diluted, and if you are more a fan of the god A, you can accuse the god B td oe responsible of most bad things…
That said, the original version of the monotheists god was not claiming to be the only one existing, he was requesting to be the only one they pray for and honor. A bit as it was the minor "god" of jealousy of a large pantheon…
(could be miss spelled:
for the greatest glory of god)
It answers nearly every questions as long as you accept to believe with a very strong faith, and to do not think at all… no, not at all, please, if you think even a bit it can't stick well...
Well, the option "there is not such a thing as an almighty and perfectly good God" seems the best to me...
At most I admit Spinoza's definition of god, but I just give it an other name…
But "he" "gave them" a nervous system so they are sensible to torture.
Also, the eternal damnation of human babies who die at birth, before baptism, is not that easy to defend as "perfectly good" nor "moraly the best that can be"… Thanks it is a "forgiving god of love", else the world would be harsh…
Well, the christian's claim is that god created the world as it is, in 6 days, and that each day he checked what he did and that he saw it was good. And so he not only created pain for innocent baby animals, but he also validated it as good. May is it onavoidable, but we are still able to regret it. Is our moral highes than god's moral? Or are we wrong and should we train ourself to feel joy at the idea of a new born baby mouse tortured by a cat who may (or not) eat it after his play (when the baby mouse died)?
Do you feel like the civilization you live in as a positive effect to prevent this crisis?
If the civilization I live in collapse, that would be an harsh chaos for us, but for climate and therefore future generations I really think it would be a positive event…
We have far less fears to see our civilzations collapse than we had at that time… Isn't it kind of positive to have some hopes?
Now that you say it, it truely works. And look, for tabaco, before the poors were smoking and dieing of the consequences of it while evil rich were getting rich by selling them poison. And so it was the richs'fault!
Thanks to taxes, poors keep smoking and they still die of it, and rich seller still make money out of it. But now the fault is on the poors who are smokers...
Also, I would like to suggest heavy high taxe on sugar and sweet products so that blackmarket could keep growing. And since we now buy cigarets from illegal drug dealers, why not also buy from them our candies and sodas? It gives back some money to (the richest one of the) poor neighbohoods without direct intervention in the economy.
Education and program for healthy behaviour accessible even for poors would be so wrong: the richest would make less money and pass for the bad guys…
It is not needingly the same. You may prefer a given economical system because you think it better for some reason. Yet with the demonstration an other system would satisfy you better, you could change your mind. That would "just" require a strong rational demonstration.
Religious faith is not rational. It is not based on proof, but purely on feelings... And greatly on the fact all the efforts made for the faith would have beel made for nothing if the faith is admitted false, and therefore the cost seems too high for the believer. So the fact nothing may prove the object of faith becomes a test of faith that justify it.
Yet you also have some rational believes. Even on simple things such as the best way to wash your hands. Should someone demonstrate a better way to do it, we would doubt at first, but if the explaination is clear and proven, we would adopt this new way. And we would not feel a pain at changing. I think this absence of pain is a mark of rational belief.
10% taxes per sample of the bible one owns?
It is a good way to tax the poors while pretending it is ethical and for public health… May the poors would be healthier if they have less money?
It sounds to me as a failure for the education system. They probably didn't deserve to die of believing in lies they could have rejected if they had received a good education in terms of critical thinking…
Touching your own feels different than others, as you have both sides feelings at once.
But should you in a double blind test grab lets say 500 butts, with no other clue than your hand on their cheeks, how correctly would you guess which butt is male and which is female?
Companies use windows at work, because it was used in school. Rather than adapt employees to Linux, better pay for windows (many go for very old and dangerous versions to spare money, and that threaten economy, but it is cheaper).
If workers know Linux, companies would make them work on Linux, rather than pay windows and adapt workers to windows.
As long as Linux is more likely to prevent massive hacks of companies'datas, the gouvernment should push for Linux at school in order to push companies toward their own safety...
Prohibiting AI training would not work, in my opinion… but trying to prevent the privatization of AI production could be interesting, isn't it?
Would it be possible (legally) to make a new version of GPL stating that code generated by AI trained on the GPL copy lefted code would have to respect the GPL as well?
But is him the creator of the world we live in? Or is someone else the origine of this pain?
The fall is to punish humans because their ancestor many generations ago acted wrong... But why are innocent baby animals punished for that? Or have their ancestors sinned too?
I am sorry, but it is hard for me to see here any kind of justice. How do you define evil in a way to distinguish it from the god?
If you wouldn't eat oak wood, why would you eat other vegetal products? ... Please stop eating at all?
Also, you don't need to turn vegal just because you don't drink milk, you could be vegetalian without be vegan.
To be vegan, you also need to prefer artificial wool to real one, and other similar animal products…
most religion set it as a blasphemy if you claim they are false…
Is it accepted and tolerated to be an atheist in your country? And do some atheist "communities" exist?
Just accepting many gods rather than just one; each with their own power and personalities... like in old paganisms... it is far more convincing to me. None of the producted texts are absolute truth, just a poetic view according to the dream given by the servant of one of the gods: of course it is not exact, so proving it wrong brings nothing... Responsabilities are diluted, and if you are more a fan of the god A, you can accuse the god B td oe responsible of most bad things…
That said, the original version of the monotheists god was not claiming to be the only one existing, he was requesting to be the only one they pray for and honor. A bit as it was the minor "god" of jealousy of a large pantheon…
ad majorem dei gloriam
(could be miss spelled: for the greatest glory of god)
It answers nearly every questions as long as you accept to believe with a very strong faith, and to do not think at all… no, not at all, please, if you think even a bit it can't stick well...
Well, the option "there is not such a thing as an almighty and perfectly good God" seems the best to me... At most I admit Spinoza's definition of god, but I just give it an other name…
But "he" "gave them" a nervous system so they are sensible to torture.
Also, the eternal damnation of human babies who die at birth, before baptism, is not that easy to defend as "perfectly good" nor "moraly the best that can be"… Thanks it is a "forgiving god of love", else the world would be harsh…
Well, the christian's claim is that god created the world as it is, in 6 days, and that each day he checked what he did and that he saw it was good. And so he not only created pain for innocent baby animals, but he also validated it as good. May is it onavoidable, but we are still able to regret it. Is our moral highes than god's moral? Or are we wrong and should we train ourself to feel joy at the idea of a new born baby mouse tortured by a cat who may (or not) eat it after his play (when the baby mouse died)?