"I've always been under the impression that the porn world is full of cocaine users and criminal elements such as drug dealing, exploitation, and mafia type elements.

I know, that the casino rings in (in the past) Nevada have been operated by criminal elements like the Italian, Asian, and Russian mafia. A good historical analysis on the matter is the series of films, Godfather I/ II/ III."
--Question

I don't know but I would guess that the people that work in the porn industry are just like anyone else trying to make a buck, but of course excluding those who's morals would not allow them to do such a thing. I remember reading on one forum that an unemployed mother found a way to support herself and kids by creating and managing adult web sites. While such work isn't always a "good" thing, everything about such an industry may not be as "bad" as some people think.


"What bothers me is that why do we still let those criminal elements of society to operate freely? Should we not clamp down on these elements?"

I find it too easy in today's world for a child to accidentally browse the internet or pick up a CD / Flash drive from a friend and watch adult entertainment."
--Question

I think a good part of it has to do with it are laws protecting people from censorship, free trade, etc. as well as various lobbyist groups that are almost as powerful as those that oppose pornography. I think a good movie to watch (or read up on since it is told at little bit on the pro-pron side) is called "The People vs. Larry Flynt" which talks about the battles between the religious establishment and Larry Flynt

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_People_vs._Larry_Flynt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boogie_Nights

..and perhaps "Boogie Nights" which talks about the struggles of the early producers/actors who had to deal with the problem of pornography being illegal because it obviously involves some form of prostitution at some time or another. Even today some people scratch their head as to why it IS ILLEGAL to pay someone for sex in almost all states, however in many of them such a transaction IS LEGAL if it done to make a movie or video. .

Another important issue is the problems when a western/supposedly "capitalist" country decides it prefers to enforce "morality" instead of allowing "free trade". This has happen with gambling, drinking, drugs, and perhaps other vices I can not think of at the moment. I think with gambling and drinking, I think the state and federal governments gave up when they realized it allowed criminal organizations to make so much money that it overall was making matters worse. However we are still fighting the "War on Drugs" which at this point isn't going that great either for the feds or the dealers; drugs are so easily available that they are a lot cheaper than it use to be and many people are turning to pharmaceutical/ over the counter drugs and other stuff in order to get their fix since it is even easier and/or cheaper than dealing with dealers/illegal drugs.

I don't know what a "War on Porn" would look like but there are some countries in the Middle East and Africa that enforce Shiite law where it can be illegal to have even a picture of a woman in a two piece bathing suit on one's computer. I'm sure in certain countries where morality is more strictly enforced some people behave better and many people may be a little happier because of it, I also believe that not having any outlet or vices for one to channel one's stress into can make it a real living hell for many others as well.


"And for the matter, why is pornography often called by it's less pejorative name as 'adult entertainment'? Isn't that like a kick to the face to a supposedly well rounded and good 'adult' to need entertainment that is so low in regards to morality?"
--Question
Agreed, but it is common for any organization to try to whitewash any negative information if they believe it to be too much for it's intended audience and they might find it unsettling. An example of this might be when the military like to say "non-combat related gunshot" instead of suicide, since one might think it is just accident with a gun or at least until you realize how common "non-combat related gunshot" are in a war zone.

I'm not sure if it is the more of the fault of the people who are too sensitive for certain topics or the people use double wording to "sugar coat" things to protect them, but I don't think entirely either one of their faults that this happens. If you happen to be one of these people who are sensitive to certain words or topics than I think it is a given that you are not blameless for such things, and if you are nonsensitive/ 'macho' enough that it doesn't really bother you that you ought to be 'macho' enough to understand that such issues are part of the human condition and not a lot can be done about as long as people are too sensitive about certain issues. Which it is a given that such conditions will exist for forever or at least as long as human beings are alive. :D

How do you prove that nothing can come from nothing? I always wondered why so many people take this statement like a logical truth.

My try is simple: Let p stand for anything. Then "~p" = nothing. "~p -> p" would mean: something follows from nothing. But ~p & (~p -> p) is a contradiction, so it's impossible that something can follow from nothing (and even more that something can be caused from nothing), so that only nothing can follow from nothing. Thoughts?
--Pippen

I have a very simple philosophical 'rule of thumb' for when anyone either talks about something coming from nothing and/or an effect coming into existence without a cause; and that is to say that whenever something either theoretically (or happening in a real world case for whatever reason) comes from nothing or is an effect without cause it is best to say that it is very, very probable that the cause is just something we are unaware of or that we really can't know enough of the process to say anything about it.

A prime example of this is "God" and "magic". What allowed "God" come into existence? Did he come from nothingness, always exist, or something else and when he creates stuff does it too come from nothingness? Is his power much like the technology we use today or is it closer to what we use to think of and call "magic" which supposedly could create thing from nothingness. Is "magic" in some ways like how people know and understand technology and if it is why isn't it in and of itself just another form of technology or science? If not than how do people even understand it?

And whether or not magic is like technology, if someone can understand enough to use it how can they determine if the things that magic creates actually comes from nothingness or from someplace we are completely unaware of?

I think the rule of thumb I just gave does a pretty decent way of answering/encapsulating this issue in a way that it answers most problems I have encounter in a satisfactory way. I can't say there isn't exceptions to this rule, but I don't think that they are that many to worry about. :D

"Apologize for my idiosyncrasies. Sometimes I think evil is attractive. It's necessary in this world or else we won't be able to appreciate good. Can evil be used as an agent to do good things and protect the ones who are weak and innocent. Just a thought that ran through my mind. We try to destroy evil by punishing it
--Rosalina
I kind of know what you mean. When I was a kid and Darth Vader said to Luke "..you have no idea of the true power of the dark side!", I felt like if I was Luke I would have pulled up a chair/grabbed a soda and asked him to tell me more about what he wants to tell me. :D

Since your a person who might value the "virtues" of being evil I suggest you consider getting and/or reading a book called "Supervillains and Philosophy: Sometimes, Evil is its Own Reward" which costs around $10-$15 on Amazon. It talks about things like how after so many years of tradition heroes posturing and spewing forth things like why kiddies should do their best to be "good", modern superheroes such as "Deadpool" are really nothing more than villains or anti-heroes who are sort of disguised as heroes but act more like the misunderstood bad guys of the past. Also it wouldn't hurt to read up on Niccolo Machiavelli and Machiavellianism to get a better grasp of how from a philosophical standpoint how evil can be good or at least useful.

Also it may be useful to note that when you criticize the flaws and weaknesses of people trying to be "good" your really working from another moral paradigm where weakness is a sin and strength (even sometimes if it can be ham handed/brutish/bullying/etc) is instead a virtue. Under such a paradigm it might be wiser to ask if weakness and the other things you see as sins are really needed.

As a person who is partial nihilism, I really think that what we think of as morality is merely about what is useful and/or not useful to us. To really think we have access to objective morality is kind of silly, other than perhaps to maintain social order and keep some people behaving who might not if they realize that what is going on is "We do what we do, because that is the way that we do it".

Hopefully this answers some of your questions. :)

"According to the linear no-threshold model, any exposure to ionizing radiation, even at doses too low to produce any symptoms of radiation sickness, can induce cancer due to cellular and genetic damage. Under the assumption, survivors of acute radiation syndrome face an increased risk of developing cancer later in life. The probability of developing cancer is a linear function with respect to the effective radiation dose. In radiation-induced cancer, the speed at which the condition advances, the prognosis, the degree of pain, and every other feature of the disease are not believed to be functions of the radiation dosage.

However, some studies contradict the linear no-threshold model. These studies indicate that some low levels of radiation do not increase cancer risk at all, and that there may exist a threshold dosage of ionizing radiation below which exposure should be considered safe. Nonetheless the 'no safe amount' assumption is the basis of US and most national regulatory policies regarding "man-made" sources of radiation.
— Wikipedia"
--Bitter Crank

It is a bit more complicated than that since there is ALSO the theory of RADIATION HORMESIS which CHALLENGES linear threshold as well as your LINEAR NO-THRESHOLD MODEL as well:

"Radiation hormesis (also called radiation homeostasis) is the hypothesis that low doses of ionizing radiation (within the region of and just above natural background levels) are beneficial, stimulating the activation of repair mechanisms that protect against disease, that are not activated in absence of ionizing radiation. The reserve repair mechanisms are hypothesized to be sufficiently effective when stimulated as to not only cancel the detrimental effects of ionizing radiation but also inhibit disease not related to radiation exposure (see hormesis).[1][2][3][4] This counter-intuitive hypothesis has captured the attention of scientists and public alike in recent years."
— Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis

I know such a theory sounds like something like a myth being created by the nuclear industry, but since such information can be counter productive if mentioned to the public; it is often easier to more or less stick with the linear model and avoid talk of the possibility of radiation being GOOD for one's health; except sometimes when people doing things such as use the linear no-threshold model. The truth is we don't know enough about radiation other than the fact that it is something we are exposed to every day of our lives and it is plausible that even this background radiation can be harmful but it is also plausible that being expose to ZERO radiation for a period of time could be as dangerous as it is from people that try to live in ultra sterile/clean environments such as so called "bubble boys".

"Chernobyl may well have caused 40,000 cancer deaths. Is that not a big deal? Well, of course it is -- but 40,000 cancer deaths in a large population is not a lot. 2,626,418 people die in the US every year--about 1/3 from cancer, about 1/3 from heart disease, and about 1/3 from stroke. The "about" leaves room for accidents, infections, and other causes of death. If 875,472,667 people die of cancer, an additional 40,000 or 50,000 isn't going to be terribly noticeable. And certainly the CAUSE of 875,472,667 cancers isn't going to be known in most cases."
--Bitter Crank

But can you prove that the number of people that died from radiation from Chernobyl is anywhere close to that number? The numbers I have is approximately 100-110 died from ARS, fires explosions,etc. when the accident first occurred (although this number might include some that died in the weeks that followed), zero or no known fatalities in the weeks and months of clean up of the nearly 500,000 liquidators/conscripts working there, no statistical data showing any real increase of cancer in general population other than an additional 4,000 kids and young adults getting thyroid cancer (which is usually treatable) and of those 4,000 patients it is estimated that 4 of them died from it. I think the high numbers you are giving are a high ball number that are given when an accident happens when it is unknown if any safety measures where taken and/or there are other dangers that may occurred that are unknown which could have also killed some addition people. Because of issues like these, initial estimates can be a bit misleading and when the data and/or statics can't show someone what they are looking for some people resort to "magical" numbers and/or embellishing the facts in order to come up with something that might help their position.

I don't know if you can remember, but when 9/11 first happened the estimated number of people they thought were killed was 25,000 because that was the number of people usually working in the building and they thought that although some of them might have gotten out, they figured there was an equal number of people who might be visiting the building that wouldn't be counted as part of this 25,000 group and the number of those people killed would sort of equal the number. That plus some of the people who could have been killed who were outside the building at the time and/or first responders who where there when the buildings collapsed. Obviously just counting the number of in a building as the number of expected casualties from a disaster isn't really accurate in any way, but it is the typical thing someone does because it is easy and it is something the public will sometimes easily accept when there is no other information. In the end, I believe less than 2,500 people who where thought to be in the twin towers died when they collapsed. When using 'magic' numbers one needs to be careful that the facts can be a lot different then we expect.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Still, I am disinclined to trust the risk-minimizing statements of the nuclear industry. No industry that I can think of has been forthright about the harm it causes."
--Bitter Crank

Well part of the reason people in the industry may not be as forth right as you would like them to be is that some of them believe that there are people in the general public who don't really understand nuclear power and that they have to watch what they say around them. It is kind of like when an adult is talking to a teen or a child, they often have censor what they say because it is beyond what they might understand. In my experience I feel many of the people who work at the plants are a little too open about what goes on, but that might just be when they talk about their work (like one person talking about having a flood at his plant during a hurricane, and worrying about it doing "Fukushima" on them,which of course it didn't ) they are usually around others who are in the industry as well.

Believe it or not some of the toughest critics of the industry are those who have been trained and have worked in nuclear power, however since they usually only know what the rest of us know their arguments are not that hard to defend against. It might help to realize that a lot of the people who work in nuclear power have done a bit of their own due diligence in order for them to verify that they are not working in an industry that is unsafe and/or that they may regret having work for later in life. For those not in the industry and who have not done their due diligence I imagine there can be a bit of distrust, but it isn't a given that this mistrust is based malignant behavior of those who work in the industry but I believe more likely on the unsettling feeling one gets when talking with someone who you can barely understand how they think or where they are coming from.

If it helps, I have a pretty extensive knowledge of some of the pros and cons (most of which I have yet been able to mention on this thread) and I can either give you information on stuff you are unaware of and or my opinion on matters you are trying to look into; and I promise to tell you what I know as long as it is something that isn't confidential in any way.

"A competently designed, properly sited, and carefully operated nuclear power plant is an appropriate source of energy, at least for the time being. However, competent design, proper siting, and careful operation--being human attributes--can and do fail.

Chernobyl and Fukushima are both excellent examples of human failure in one or more critical areas. Why do these failures occur? Haste, over-confidence, insufficient thoroughness, cheapness, momentary inattention to detail, unimaginative planning, bad practices, etc."
--Bitter Crank

I agree that all these problems are a problem with any industry but I think you are inaccurate if you think that this is a particular problem in the nuclear industry in comparison to any other business, government, or industry in general. For one thing, the nuclear industry in the US is both THE MOST regulated industry in the US, and I believe the most regulated nuclear industry in the world. When an industry has so many regulations that it threatens to put them out of business (and WOULD PUT ANY OTHER INDUSTRY out of business), I believe it is more accurate to think of most of the problem and/or accidents occurring in due to either human error and/or having to deal with situations and conditions that sometimes even the designers are unaware of.

Try to imagine what it would be like instead of accepting that 30,000 people died per year and about 1.3 million people die in car crashes, what would happen if the US and other governments cracked done on various things that can contribute to fatalities on the road and expected people to live by them to the point were only 10% of the fatalities that occur today kept happening? While this may seem very far fetched, it is sort of what it is like working in the nuclear industry where it is a given that incidents will happen, even if everything is heavily regulated and people do their best to never screw up. And even though everyone that knows anything about the industry knows this, there is still a knee-jerk reaction to anything that ever happens.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The waste-disposal problem seems to be primarily political. I don't view nuclear waste as benign in any way, shape, manner, or form, but there are methods of disposal that can be final:

Site waste disposal in the most geologically stable rock. In North America there is the Laurentian Shield, for instance, which is the igneous / granitic core of the continent. It's as stable as rock is going to get. Most of it is in Canada, but some of it is in the US--in the Great Lakes region, like northern Minnesota.

Bore a shaft well below the water table. Put the properly packaged highly radioactive long lasting waste in halls branching off the shaft. Back fill. Plug the shaft with a lot of concrete.

The very hint of a whisper of suggestion that northern Minnesota would make a better waste disposal site than the desert southwest will cause 5 million Minnesotans to rise in wrath. But it makes sense. The desert southwest is more geologically active than the Laurentian Shield. It's therefore a bad place to put waste.

Other features that make northern Minnesota a good location: It's flat--thanks to the glaciers 10,000 - 100,000 years ago. Most of the dirt was removed. Better to bore way down below the mean surface of the land than bore into a mountain to bury stuff. Another thing: Northern Minnesota already has lots of big holes--like the underground Tower-Soudan mine which is about 2300 feet deep or the big open pit iron mines.

The biggest risk we take is leaving highly radioactive (and chemically toxic) waste on site -- like fuel rods, whether in the reactor or in storage pools. In the event of a not-unimaginable deterioration and unraveling of society, we would be leaving unattended roughly 500 time bombs of toxicity in the world."
--Bitter Crank

Organizations in the nuclear industry have already built such sites like you suggested and even built special containers that could withstand a direct hit from an US built RPG (which would not be easy for terrorist or anyone else that might do such a thing) but after these were built they requirements changed in order for them to withstand direst hits from tanks and or withstand getting hit by something like a train or plane. Even though such events were highly unlikely.

But what might of killed such projects even more was public opposition when it came to using such facilities after they got built. I'm sure people where happy to have money being spent in their state if and when the nuclear industry asked if they could built them (since they are by no means cheap to make and having them in one's state could definitely help one's economy during the time they need to build it), but opposite materialize right before they could be brought online making it near impossible to now use.

I don't know if you can relate to what it must be like for those who oversee the nuclear industry at the time to have this happen to them, but I think it would make both them (as well as other that come after them) in doing what the public wants them to do to make the storage of nuclear waste safer without serious consideration of every potential opposition the public might have in anything they do. Right now they do what they do mostly because it is the most" out of sight, out of mind" process they can do (since it spends a lot of time at the plant and then moved to someplace that already is approved to hold waste), while at the same time still being the most safe-ish means to store the waste. If there was any other means they could change the process without too much costs, headaches, red tape, etc. they would likely do it but as far as I can tell they isn't anything they can do to get anything approved even if the process is safer than what they have now.

"Yes. Our largest and least expensive new energy source is CONSERVATION."
--Bitter Crank
I agree that conservation is a good thing and I tip my hat to those that do their best to do it, but I don't know how feasible it really is in a capitalist/materialistic society such as we have in the West. Also I don't know the numbers behind conservation but I remember someone telling me that during WWII when people were told there were shortages of nearly every type of material and goods (including food), there was a various recycling programs that were the best we ever had, and have had ever since. The unfortunate thing was that there was so much stuff saved that majority had to eventually had to be thrown away since the means to recycle it never was created.

I guess my position on energy in general is to use as many (and if possible ALL means) to produce energy in order to not be reliant on any one source at any particular time like we were oil shortages in the 70's. Other than that, I think it is a given that we need to be pragmatic as to which sources we use and don't use. Also I should say that some of my opinion has been shaped by doing a little bit of speed reading of a book called "Power Hungry" which suggest some of the reasons we are so reliant on fossil fuels and gas is that they are much cheaper and easier to get at the present time and the author predicts we will continue to be reliant on them for many decades to come in which we will eventually start developing relying more on nuclear power as it gets harder to find more fossil fuels and gas.

Since his book was published awhile ago (I think at least ten years), I'm unsure the data he compiled at the time of his writing it still jives with what we now know. Which is part of of the reason I started this thread..

"From a bit of reading I've the impression that a lot of the harmful isotopes released by accidents like Fukushima and Chernobyl shorter lived than we've been told, though I can't find easy facts about the spread of the longer lived actinides. Cesium 137 is the principle radioactive source in Chernobyl's exclusion zone, which has a half life of 30 years (?). Still harmful but less so for future generations. Different story for epicenter of meltdown containing melted rods.

Compare the risks of nuclear power to coal and the latter probably causes far more cancer and death. The standard American diet is far more destructive to human health and the environment than nuclear power."

As far as I know from the studies I heard of , nobody has died from Fukushima although it is a given the same can not be said of Chernobyl where it is know that at least 100 to about 110 of the operators at the plant as well firefighters that came to the reactor died from various causes. From what I know most of the deaths where not from radiation poisoning itself but from things like being in area that release the steam/water hammer after the reactor went super critical, falls, dying while fight the fire, being vaporized, etc.

There are not any real good numbers for this but one of the rules of thumb I have heard of from some of the people in the nuclear industry is that "IF" for some reason you happen to be in the right place at the wrong time (or perhaps the wrong place at the right time, or wrong place at the wrong time), and you get expose to a lethal dose of radiation then there is still a **BETTER than **50%** you will die from other stuff before the radiation can do anything to you. Of course this may merely a means to suggest that there are many,many, many other things that can kill you in day to day life and/or can kill you if you happen to work in any hard core industry where you are working with any potential dangerous machinery/ technology. And of course it may be that some people are a little cavilier of the dangers of radiation when dealing with all their other issues they deal with at the plant as well.

For the dangers to the public, I'm unaware of any study about Fukushima other than it is believed in some places in Japan the average background radiation has nearly increase to twice to what it was before. This sounds kind of scary (and I'm sure it isn't something that some people in Japan are really happy about either) but to get an idea of what this means, it is useful to note that the average America received around TWICE the amount of background radiation (partly from geography, radiation left over military nuclear bomb testing, and people getting x-rays) and this amount is still considered safe or safe-ish at least.

The numbers are kind of fuzzy to me now, but I think the number is around 2 to 3 rads per year the average american is exposed to from background and other sources. Getting 2 to 3 rads at once or over a couple days (which is a just little more than what you might get while they are checking for or treating cancer), isn't great but it isn't really life treating either. I think when some members of the population gets hit with 10 rad in a few hours or days they can have issues, and there might be some statistical studies suggest there is an increase health risk at this point. I don't even know if it is correct or proper to say there is an increase at this point other than to say it is obviously more dangerous than getting just 2 rad from something like chemo and/or it is something that no organization in western would expect to or even allow it's employees/soldiers be exposed to other than perhaps during a war/combat operations or some kind of an emergency. At 20 rad I believe there is evidence or studies to show that around this point a large percentage of population will develop some.of the first symptoms of radiation sickness which includes nausea, dizziness, confusion, etc. Such symptoms might sound scary if one know it is coming being exposed to radiation but it might help to realize that such symptoms are common with many, many other health issues (such as getting the flu or other illnesses) and can partly be thought of the bodies way of reacting to discovering everything is not right with it. As a person living with acute chronic pain (from a herniated disk in my neck that I got 'fixed' a couple years ago), I've gotten use to the idea of having to wake up and deal with pain, nausea, etc. and still sort of go about what is left of my day to day life; although saying this I'm not trying to make light of those who have such symptoms for other reasons. I'm merely trying to make a remark on how little it can mean to doctors and/or others when someone has such symptoms and there is no association with them to radiation.


Anyways around 50 rads things become a bit more life threatening. It might helpful to note that at Chernobyl the military conscripts and civilian "liquidators" (ie civilians forced to help in the clean up efforts although this term was often used in reference to the conscripts as well) were sent home if it was know they where in an area where they got a dose above around 35 rad, although it is a given that some of them got higher dosages than that from being in areas that had higher radiation than it was thought to have. At 35 rad (and even to a degree with 50 rads as well) it is plausible that someone could have a good possibility of more or less still leading a happy and health life with only some health issues, but also think it is also a given there is a possibility of them not having such a long and happy life due to exposure.

I'm unaware of any statistical studies that says what that dangers are or what happens at 35 rads or 50 rads, other than a very high probability of them showing signs of radiation sickness, but I think it is a given there would be an increase risk of cancer, organ failure, and other potential problems. It might be also worth while to note of the liquidators/conscripts who did clean up the reactor and where often exposed to high levels of radiation, there is no statistical information to suggest that they have or had any more health issues than the rest of the population. I don't know know if the number of liquidators exposed to 20-50 rads was so few, too many of them died from the immediate effects of radiation sickness (ie. which would exclude them from any study done to determining long term effects), or if the powers that be in the Soviet Union deliberately whitewashed the numbers to protect their backside, but the fact remains there is little to no statistical information done while studying the effects of Chernobyl to suggest for people exposed to less than 100 rad (ie. which would likely kill them) that they had any statistically increased probably of developing one health issue or another. This doesn't mean there wasn't any increased risk, it only means the studies done can not say one way or another what the risks and other issues really are. At around 80 to 100 rad, people develop a severe case of acute radiation sickness including immediate or eventual various kinds of necrosis and at this level most people will not survive the experience. I believe this was about the level that several of the Chernobyl operators and firefighters where exposed to (since the firefights where known to either 'blackout' or become disoriented as they were trying to fight the fire) before anyone could come and get them out of the area before they became overexposed. I believe from what I have read at really, really high levels, (500 rads or more) people don't just eventually develop ARS, headaches, etc. but it can simply knock a person outright.
I believe the theory as to why this happens is radiation exposure can temporarily slightly screws up brain and nervous system functions and at really high levels instead of just disorientation, the entire system gets overwhelmed and has to shut off much like it does when it receives other shocks.

I was trying to give you some idea of the risks of what happens to people when they get exposed to various levels of radiation (so you might be less scared of it) but I guess I got a little carried away. :D

Also I should note this information *ONLY* pertains to happens when a person is exposed to a quick one time dose and there is little to no information as to what happens if exposure is staggered over a time period much longer than a few days. Dosages are calculated as accumulated and in the nuclear industry they are summed together over the year one works. Like any toxin or drug, radiation is less dangerous if it comes in several smaller dosages than all at once. Think of it like what would happen to your average teenager was exposed to the caffeine (which is actually a neurotoxin in higher dosages) in the sodas they drink in a year, which I'm pretty sure wouldn't be good. The highest known recorded radiation dose ever adsorb and some still survived (ie they didn't die from radiation sickness) was a lifetime dose of 5,000 rad which is obviously 50 times the dose which usually kills someone. Part of the reason they survived was the dosage was a little bit every hour of their life (after they got injected with radioactive plutonium) instead of any particularly high dose at any one time. While the idea of having plutonium injected into you may not be a good thing, it is sort of less helpful to think that if something like that did happen one might be able to survive it if the amount isn't too much. Then again I don't think such a substance is as easily available. as the time that this happened.

I'll have to stop for now but I hope to respond to your other questions when I get a chance.....

While reading your post I get the impression you are a little more informed about some of the technology and issues surrounding the industry. :D

I thought you might also like a few other factoids that I have learned over the years:

** A lot of the waste that is produced by modern nuclear power plants could be reduced if we decided to keep using a fuel rod instead of throwing them away after being used for just a little while. I forget the actual number but I believe it is somewhere between **98.5%** to 99.9%** of the potential energy that is available in a rod is NEVER USED. Imagine what it would be like if you could only utilize 1% or even less of the oil you put in your car. Part of the reason doing this is economically feasible is that even if the material used in reactor is very expensive, the amount of fuel that is actually needed is so small when compared to other industries the cost of the fuel really isn't a factor for what it cost to run the plant and generate energy. The other reason is again the cost is so small that even if they throw away 99% of the available fuel, the cost of the fuel still isn't a significant factor for what it cost to generate energy.

** While it is feasible to expect the nuclear industry to try and be more efficient with the fuel rods they use (in order not go through too much nuclear material and not leave any for future generations), the crazy thing is money doesn't have to be wasted to produce means to make the reactors still be able to use the fuel after it gets depleted a little (which I'm pretty sure is very expensive and/or difficult to do), the fuel can instead be "recycled" in a what are known as "breeder" reactors. Breeder reactors have been created in United States (in fact one of the very first reactors created was a experimental breeder reactor which was built before reactors were available for commercial use) but since they don't exist or I should say not allowed for commercial use, the red tape, technical and political issues that need to be overcome to build one is more that any person or organization's will and resources are able to overcome at the moment.

** While the US doesn't allow breeder reactors to be use, the French have a much more aggressive nuclear program in their country and they even see the building and use of breeder reactors as a way for them to save money on the cost of fuel for their reactors. Why the company's that run nuclear reactors are not as concern with the cost of fuel as the French is unknown, but maybe it is because either the French actually have to pay more than we do or perhaps the companies in the US are too use to the cost they pay and/or how they current use fuel and run their reactors. Hopefully the nuclear program and breeder reactors being used in France will encourage people and ideas in the US and help our nuclear industry as well in the future.

**In Germany, they have more or less gone "all Green" (or about as being as dedicated to green energy and developed country can be in the western world) where as France has gone "all Nuclear" (having the most aggressive nuclear power program possible at this time). For the US, Great Britain, and as well as many other countries, these two different energy policies are being watched and evaluated as if each country was a test subject in order to get an idea what it would be like to go "all out" as either of these countries have. Needless to say, it is a given that both polices/ideologies have pros and cons to them with people that are for green tech hoping that Germany helps advance some of the current technology and smooth out some of the "wrinkles" that comes when a country tries to ween itself off fossil fuel. In France it is believed the weening process will be a little smooth (perhaps partly because they already have to deal with their own problems of scarcity/costs of other fuels which is a big part of the reason they choose nuclear energy in the first place), but instead of economical/political issues of green energy there is always in the back of their mind(and those watching their program) when and how they will deal with any incident in their nuclear industry and what will be the after effects from it. Needless to say there are people in France and here in the US that are keeping their fingers cross and hope everything more or less goes good for them. :)

As far as I'm concerned, that answers the question quite definitively. Only two thousand years ago, Jesus was preaching. So global warming will perhaps cause a catastrophe whereby we lose most of the major cities and a lot of the arable land - that's serious, but in 500 years we will have adapted. Find another solution to the problems of the moment. Don't shit on the next few millennia.
--unenlightened

I'm not sure this is a pro or anti nuclear statement since it is plausible for it to be interpreted either way.

If we use nuclear energy we will have to deal with the waste (which may not be as bad as some people think it will be or at least IMHO), and if we DON'T use nuclear power the alternative sources of power we use could cause so much environmental damage over the next several centuries it could increase the problems of the Green House effects and threaten many of the species that live on this planet including ourselves.

We may be able to pick our poison, but none of the real choice we can make will have the "zero net effect" on the environment which you may be hoping for. To the best of my knowledge there are too many people on earth and too few viable "clean energy" options at the moment which can be implemented quickly enough to have no real risk. There might be something in the near future to change this, but without knowing anything about them I can not say any of the one's I am aware of won't have any risks that makes them that much less dangers than nuclear in one way or another.

Although my training on what happens to nuclear fuel after it has been isn't that extensive, from what I know it does seem any more dangerous than the waste generated by alternatives. With coal instead of waste being contained as it is with nuclear, it is released into the environment as smoke which has a higher net radioactivity and toxins than the waste produced in a nuclear plant. People often don't realize this because coal waste is diluted by the air and/other things used by a coal plant where as with nuclear it has to remain at the plant where it may become more concentrated for easier handling.

Also from what I have been told one of the rules of thumb of radioactive material, it can either be highly radioactive for a short period of time or radioactive for a long period of time but with less radioactivity. These "super-duper" radioactive substances that constantly give off the same ultra high radioactivity for centuries on end is something created in one's imagination. Even the elephants foot at Chernobyl (which was thought to give off somewhere between 20,000 to 30,000 REM when first found has since cooled down a bit after it has gone through a few of it's half-lives.

It is really not that much different then the risks faced by either organizations that use other sources of energy and/or other industries in general. I could try and find some stats on what the risks for people that work in either the trucking or other parts of the transportation sector, but I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be phased by the tens of thousands of people dying every year in bloody and violent vehicle accidents (which of course includes many of them getting burned to a crisp when a crash causes a fire and the fire reaches either the fuel or other highly flammable material). But since driving cars and other vehicles is just 'part of our way of life', we are more or less indifferent to many of the risks that come from everyone driving in either developed and/or some developing countries.

Since we can't see radiation, it can be a little harder to rationalize the real risks when we compare it the other forms of "acceptable risks" we face when going about our normal lives.

Bertrand Russell was once asked what he would say if he found himself standing before God on the judgement day and God asked him, "Why didn’t you believe in Me?". Russell replied, "I would say, ‘Not enough evidence, God! Not enough evidence!'".
--Sapientia

It is funny but I have had my own personal "spiritual experiences" where it almost seemed like I could talk to 'God' (ie I would ask myself questions and the answers came from somewhere that didn't seem like they were derived from my usual conscience knowledge/experience but perhaps sub-conscience instead). I was also really,really drunk at the time which I think is worth noting in order for someone reading this to not think I'm crazy.

Since the 'God' I spoke to during this experience had a much different... viewpoint than the 'God' that is described by Christian or typical Abrahmic beliefs perhaps I could try to use the excuse that what the 'God' at the pearly gates expected me to believe is different than what 'God' told when I had my "spiritual experiences" and told me the how and why things are the way they are; which BTW didn't really have expectation of me living a certain way or having to follow any particular religion.

I'm sure it is plausible that my whole "spiritual experience" could have been some form of delusion from being too drunk or even an 'evil demon' trying to trick me; but I'm pretty sure the same thing could be said of any Christian when they have under gone such things.

If I was ever at the pearly gates and 'God' was upset at me for not following the right god / "God" (ie. would a 'good' God punish a person for not being able to reach 'God' because of their own limitations, or would he realize the moral dilemmas of such a catch-22?), I imagine it would be an interesting situation to be in even if my mortal soul was on the line. On the other hand since the real world (that 'God' supposedly created) is full of catch-22's, I shouldn't be that surprised if I have to deal with any type of SNAFU when I move on from this world to the next.

Why would the afterlife be any less crazy than this one. :D

At some point I read that there is no way to define law, or at least that is an opinion that is held. I disagree though. I think that laws are rules set by people in power as an effort to control an aspect of the population. Is that not a reasonable definition?
--MonfortS26

I think it goes along the line of "he who has the gold makes the rules", even if they are merely making up the rules as they go along in order to suit their own needs. If this wasn't true, then we would call it every time a government collected 'taxes' as racketeering, just as we call it any other time a group tried to collected money from us in the name of protection/services regardless if anything is really being done for us.

Other than trying maintaining the status quo the law is about "We do what we do, because that is the way that we do it."

I know this may sound strange but even though I'm an atheist, I think if there was a 'God' I think his mentality would be mixture between George Carlin and 180 proof and there would be a slight possibility for him (or what 'God' is) forgiving me for arguing against Christianity. Although having a God that thinks this way would be good enough that I wouldn't be bothered that much if I wasn't forgiven. I wonder if any other atheist for the other forum members that know 180 proof can relate. I hope he is still ok, wherever he is. .


George Carlin - Matrix Architect Parody:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1ek1jwX4qo
(I like when she complains about why he has some many cameras watching her, he remarks about that is he is bored/lonely and has been stuck there for a very long time. I can also relate to how he is trying to use one of his fancy words and have to stop and resort to a dictionary/ thesaurus)

"I didn't ask to see the world through your eyes. You might as well just say that you don't know what the difference between empiricism and metaphysics is as you do not address any of the points raised."
--Coldlight

Well since "empiricism and metaphysics" doesn't support your side, it is obvious that your either trying to pull something from your backside by pretending that it does or that you don't really know what you are talking about. Since I don't know you it could be either way, but since you seem kind of emotional about it I'm guessing the latter instead of the former, unless your emotions are a lie as well.

Whether you realize it or not, YOU DID ASK ME HOW I CAME TO MY POSITION which in the context of the question is the same thing as asking me how I came to my religion/system of beliefs which I evaluate the world around me. You are acting as if any and all ideologies/cultures merely only have 'logical', 'empirical', etc elements to them (or perhaps you feel this it is how it is or should be with agnosticism) but that isn't really how it works. People believe and see the world they way they do mostly because of the human condition and not because any empirical or metaphysical whatever tells them that is what they should believe; and if you don't understand this than it is something you will eventually have to figure out. "We do what we do because that is the way we do it", not because some logical/ empirical/ metaphysical nonsense can any sense from our world or our existence.


"My view does not matter, I didn't start the discussion to promote my view. You're posing as an amateur psychiatrist here, so either cut it off or bring something to the table."
--Coldlight

You didn't start this thread to promote your view, yet even the title of this thread (as well as the OP) contain your views as well as your arguments you used to support it. I almost feel like pointing out how naive it is to try and argue in such a way, if doing so wasn't so moot.

When debating religious issues (which includes the pros and cons of agnosticism more or less), it is a given that in order to ARGUE such issues one has to do so from some sort or religious/ ideological/ cultural/ system of beliefs/ etc. of one's own. In other words there is no real 'NEUTRAL'' or 'OBJECTIVE' position one can have when someone evaluates another religion/ ideology/ system of beliefs than their own, because there is NO way to evaluate someone else's WITHOUT RESORTING TO THE METRICS CONTAINED IN OWNS OWN IDEOLOGY OR SYSTEM OF BELIEFS; even if you or anyone else trying to do this is unhappy with this fact.

While you don't like that I may seem to be playing "amateur psychiatrist" with you, I'm just asking enough questions and playing enough head games to be able to pull from you whether you are aware of such issues (which I think they teach in either philosophy 101 or perhaps psych 101) in order to know where your coming from before I start arguing about things involving more complicated stuff that requires me to concentrate more than I really want to sometimes.

If you really understood the difference between 'fact' and 'opinion' (as it is taught in philosophy 101) you would realize that your argument that people 'ought' to not believe in agnosticism is merely your opinion since Hume several centuries ago pointed out you can't get an 'ought' from an 'is'; leaving you.

And even if you think that "I" am CRAZY for agreeing with Hume (as well as other people that agree with him as well), Hume's argument just so happens to be one of the major doctrines in western society (although there are similar arguments in eastern society as well) which makes such arguments and/or beliefs almost on equal terms with theism; which in a nutshell puts you somewhere harder than between a rock and a hard place if you believe you can 'logically' or through some other means prove people who think as I do are more of a secret squirrel than you are.

Hopefully this helps in some way answer the question you gave in your OP, and if not than oh well, it isn't like there is a rhyme or reason to anything anyways...

You're not really saying that there are two types of Christian - fake Christians who don't really believe and hard core Christians who will kill their Children, are you?
--T Clark
I've been doing this long enough to word my position a bit more carefully than that. If you reread my post a little more carefully you will see that I said SOME Christians (hopefully more than just one or two of them for the sake of my argument) believe "that there are two types of Christian - fake Christians who don't really believe and hard core Christians who will kill their Children".

Actually this is more along the lines of Kierkegaard wrote than any particular nutcase out there preaching what they think the bible says. It is also worthwhile to note that AS THE PATRIARCH of JUDAISM , CHRISTIANITY, and ISLAM - Abraham is the founder of all Abrahamic religions (hence the name 'Abrahamic religions') and when asked by 'God' to sacrifice his first son, he went through the motions without really any hesitation. While it may be heresy to claim that God would ask someone to kill one of their children (or someone else) in order to please him, IT IS RIGHT THERE IN THE BIBLE OF HIM (or her/it/they if God so happens not to be a 'he') DOING SO. While it is improper for us in western society to talk or say anything such things, in the bible the founder of Judaism and all schisms of it (which includes Christianity) is faced with such a problem and the bible says what he did to resolve it which is more or less expected of any of it's 'true' followers as well. Although you may take from this what you may.

To be honest I only really know about this by reading through some intro material to Kierkegaard and in his works he spent a good amount of time musing over this issue in Christianity.

Well, why do you not doubt your own doubts? Our reason is limited, but to what extend is it limited? It doesn't follow that the reason is limited therefore we have very little access to any truth.
--Coldlight
It partly comes studying/debating philosophy for over ten years, partly from a life of constantly seeing things go fubar, and partly because I question things enough to be pretty sure you might ask me a question such as this one; which I even mentioned in my previous post.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How do you support the claim that the world is much more complicated than we can understand? I'm not speaking about empirical data, but about the abilities of the reason and epistemology.
--Coldlight
Well, who knows what man may understand one day, but that is not the issue at hand nor is it one I even have to bother addressing as it isn't really relevant to this issue.

It is funny but to be honest thinking about this question, I find it kind of hard to address it the right way since I'm unsure of the right um.."paradigm" you might view the world from which would make you ask such a question in philosophy forum. You see as people who study philosophy we are often skeptics are faced with the fallibility of the world more than perhaps people who do not study it. We are aware of things such as the failures in history, the number of times our leaders almost nuked the world, the human condition, etc. and knowing such things allows us to be aware of how fallible the human race can be and how the world is more complicated than some people realize ; not that it is a given that non-philosophers are not aware of the same issues.

To be honest, there is no simple way for me to explain things enough so you can see the world from my eyes (even though I wish it was possible for me to do so), nor am I sure you would really like to have such knowledge. Perhaps the easiest way for me to argue my position is to point out that Socrates has been said to have claimed that he knew he was the wisest man in Athens because he knew he knew nothing (ie. if a man that is aware of the fallibility of his own knowledge as well as the knowledge of others than this knowlde in and of itself trumps any other form of knowledge) , and what he knew back then still applies to the world we live in today. If you figure out what this means it might help answer your question.

People don't believe in God based on arguments, because arguments are not the proper tools to establish the existence of anything. Arguments only unpack what is present in their premises. The premises bring with them, implicitly, the stuff whose existence is being "proven".

Of course, many people are not aware of this, and perhaps there are a sizeable minority of believers who thinks that they believe "based on arguments", but they are mistaken.

To "believe in the existence of X" is a movement of the soul that rests on two legs:

1. Experience
2. Discourse

If you want to explore why someone believes in X, these are the fields that must be explored. "Argument", of course, is a kind of discourse, but the discourse being singled out here is more akin to poetry. How to express experiences. I have no doubt that some 99% of the disagreements between believers and non-believers are based on disputes about that.
--Mariner
Nice to see you again Manier! :D :D I don't know if we have debated since the old philosophy forum but regardless or not it is always good to see old friends for the first forum we were on. :)

In reading your post the word that come to my mind is "paradigm" : some people experience the world through one paradigm and for others they see it through a different one. However the one wrinkle that kind of remains; are these paradigms (which may be created through experience and discourse as you say and/or through other means) supported merely through "appeals to authority"/"proof by assertion" or is it done through something else?

I don't think theism is "evil" in and of itself, nor are all of it's ideas "wrong"/worthless (after the last two thousand years, I'm sure there has to be at least one or two diamonds somewhere in the ruff), but I don't think it is all that better than many of the other religions or system of beliefs that are out there.

Perhaps another way to put it, during the cold war the western world and the soviet union both thought themselves as the 'good guys' and the people on the other side as the 'bad guys' merely because they were more familiar with their own ideology/culture than their own. I guess my argument is the western world/theism (as well as other major cultures in the world such as Islam) suffer from being blind sighted just as the super powers in the cold world where blind sighted by their own ideologies (which are partly created through "appeals to authority"/"proof by assertion" fallacies) and I believe it is worthwhile to point out such issues since as people who study philosophy we should be aware of such things.....and of course this in and of itself is not a failure of Christianity/theism itself since it is a problem created by the human condition and it happens pretty much in ALL ideologies. Or at least the ones that can get big enough to be believed by a lot of people.

Also it may be worthwhile to note that Christianity TOO suffered from the same bias. Before Christianity was accepted as a rational ideology it's believers were persecuted by Roman and other civilizations until it could be accepted/assimilated into western civilization and various cultures.

I'm just responding to your thread about belief in God; I'm not saying anything about agnosticism. But I agree with you; I think it's important to acknowledge that all beliefs have an irrational element, each to varying degrees. So again, I'm therefore unclear what this thread is about. It doesn't seem to be about why people believe in God.
--Noble Dust
One of the tasks of people who study and debate philosophy is to point out fallacies when they see them. My point is that much of the acceptance of theism (and the rejection of other ideologies which are different than it) is that theism uses a combination of "proof by assertion" along with "appeal to authority/antiquity" and as people who study philosophy we should be aware of such issues/fallacies in order to not allow our thinking to be clouded. Although it is a given that there are almost so many OTHER fallacies we have to contend with it almost makes one more fallacy kind of moot; this fallacy in and of it self touches on perhaps the BIGGEST one held by western society, so yes there may be reasons why I should point it out and it should be noted by others.

Belief is an attitude which accepts a proposition as true without evidence. As such, there is no premise which supports, hence; no argument which proves, anything about God.
--Galuchat
But if that is true, than why is it not acceptable of any other belief that doesn't have to do with God? When certain people start living in their own fantasy world, which can not be supported by the facts of the world around them, much like the people who we consider to be daydreams, space cadets, romantics, etc. While it is normal for our beliefs to NOT be EXACTLY in tune with reality, it is another thing when our reality is so out of tune with reality that we might be willing to kill our own kids in order to satisfy some requirement of our fantasy world.

In the western world we are use to dancing around this elephant in the room, but this elephant is still there even if we have gotten use to just walking around it. If what you say is true in your post than why should someone be upset if they think that agnosticism is self defeating? Is it perhaps that he as well as the rest of us are use to giving a free pass to theism, but are unwilling to walk around the issues for other ideologies as we do for theism?

Why do you think that? I am not a Christian now, but I was one a long time ago and thought then that God listened to my prayers and communicated back in some vague way. I don't think I am any more or less rational now than I was then. It's just my life experiences that have changed.

I don't think any of us are in any position to judge other people's rationality, because we cannot know what experiences they have had and IMHO, in the end, all judgements are based on experience.

Also, Lewis's so-called trilemma ('Lord, Liar or Lunatic') is not a trilemma because there are at least two other options:

1. The claims that Jesus claimed to be God are false. The historical Jesus never made such a claim ('Libelled'); or
2. There was no historical Jesus ('Lack')
--andrewk

I agree that moist of the time none of us are in a position where we can judge the sanity of someone else than our selves, and most of the time when we reflect on ourselves it is because we have to for our own sake and for the sake of those around us. But part of my OP 'IS' about the times we HAVE to judge the sanity of others much as the way we have to judge our own sanity. As I have mentioned on a few other posts on this thread, in other thread on this forum it was asked if "agnosticism is self defeating", and much like a courtroom case where certain subject matter is to be ignored to protect/ or for the sake of one side (unless of course they choose to open up that can of worms themselves) since it can be incriminating, this can of worms HAS been opened up and it is unfair if some asks if agnosticism is rational but then to turn around and say that it is IMPROPER to ask the same thing of theism.

Also if Jesus didn't exist or if he never claimed he was the son of God, than I'm pretty sure that would be a major flaw with Christianity. I think an aspect of my argument is that you are trying to argue for and protect what some hard core Christians claim to be 'fake' Christians (ie. Christians who just go through the motions but in many ways do not really believe). My argument is focused on the hard core Christians who believe strongly enough that they believe they have a direct connection with God and if God commands them to kill one of their kids (or perhaps kill someone else) there is a very high probability that they would try and carry out his wish. I'm talking about one of Kierkegaard's true 'knights of faith' not about someone who might like to be one but doesn't really have the stomach for it and what would be required of them to become one.

If you're asking "why do people believe in God?" And then proceeding to say that you're only interested in logical reasons, then I don't know if you'll get far; the average Chritian or Muslim or Religious Jew doesn't necessarily have a conscious logical proof in their mind that allows them to participate in their religion. So unless you meant "theist philosophers" instead of "people", then I'm not sure what the use is of the discussion. The fact that average believers haven't logically reasoned through their beliefs in great depth does not delegitimize their faith, nor is it an argument against the existence of God.
--Noble Dust

But can't you see that your argument is part of my point? If theist (or perhaps someone who is anti-agnostic) claims that "agnosticism is self defeating" when theism can not be supported by logical/rational reasons then it is a double standard for anyone that knows this to expect that ideologies other than theism to do so.

One can accept that ALL ideologies have logical/rational inconsistencies which make them not exactly logical/rational, or they can be upset that they all have this problem (even if doing so is kind of naive IMHO) but being upset with some ideologies that do this with not being upset with others would mean that one is applying a double standard. Although one could also not be aware of how all ideologies are flawed, but this position would be one of ignorance so it would have it's own problems as well.

I hope you can see what I'm getting at..

Why is it crazy to believe that you have direct access to God? What would keep you from having direct access? Why would God restrict access? What's the point of religion if we can't have direct access?
--T Clark
And if 'God' asks someone to kill their only son or perhaps someone else you don't see any problem with that? Perhaps there are people who can speak to God but I think it is pretty much a given that some of the crazy people who claim they can talk to 'God' are merely crazy people who are not talking to God but instead suffer from some sort of mental problem. Hopefully this is enough for you to realize some of the issues with this problem.

According to modern laws of physics, you CAN'T get something from nothing or at least not as far as we understand how the universe works.

Think of it this way, in order for something to exist (at least in the way we understand HOW something exist) something must have CAUSED it to exist since it can't come from nothing. When some scientist say that something came from nothing, they really are saying that it came from somewhere/something we don't know about. Why they don't say this is because they can't say they know it came from some unknown because then people would ask HOW they know it came from this unknown place, so instead they just say it came from 'nothing' instead. It is really a catch-22 since there is no way to really answer questions about such things in a way that is satisfactory to layman who don't understand the problem.


Also think of it this way, in order to KNOW that SOMETHING ACTUALLY came from NOTHING you FIRST have to rule out ANY POSSIBILITY that it came from someplace you are unaware of first. Since there are an INFINITE number of places and or ways something could have come into existence through means we are unaware of it is a given that it is IMPOSSIBLE for us to PROVE in any way shape of form that something could come from nothing.

If you really think of it, it is even IMPOSSIBLE for us to logically to conceive of how this is possible other than how things 'magically' are created in fiction through one's imagination, and even then it is considered it considered a given it is 'conjured' from some unknown place or means which we are unaware of.

So in order to not let your panties get in a wrinkle over such worries it is best as a rule of thumb just to accept that it is possible for things to come into existence through means we are not yet aware of and to accept that when scientist or even authors of fictions talk about 'things coming into existence from nothing', they are really talking about them coming into existence through places or means we have yet to understand, and just leave it at that.

I just listened to Sam Harris's podcast with Jordan B Peterson, and although the epistemological discussion they were having regarding pragmatism and truth sounded really interesting, I found myself entirely lost after about 45 minutes. Can someone explain to me, in layman terms what pragmatism is?
--rickyk95

It's doing what needs to be done, or doing whatever 'works' for you. Of course there are different ideas of 'what needs to be done' or whatever 'works', but if your a 20 to 30 year old who has ever worked a few years in your life you likely have some experience working somewhere where you and others had to focus on just doing something instead of over worrying on HOW or WHY it had to be done.

I guess you can think of it as action or results over ideology, but since it itself is an ideology then I guess you can say it is an ideology which is focused on actions and or results. Also it is worth noting that for some 'ruthless Pragmatism' is thought to be almost the same thing as Machiavellianism so it might useful for you to read up on Machiavellianism in order to understand some of the..aspects of pragmatism. :)

Hi, I'm new to the forum :)

Agnosticism is the view that the existence of God or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable.

According to the philosopher William L. Rowe, "agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist"
(Wikipedia)

We can go further by claiming that no absolute truth can be known, and that nothing metaphysical can be proven. I think that this view is wrong because it puts agnosticism itself as an absolute truth, as something we can know with certainty.

If there are absolute truths that can be discovered, then agnostic view of human reason is also wrong.

Any ideas?
--Coldlight

Agnosticism/Skepticism (as well as other positions such as Nihilism) has answers that easily counter your arguments, but it is likely that either you or someone with a position similar to your own would need a little more background information in order to understand it. You first have to understand the concept of what it means if no religion/ideology/position/etc. not being the 'truth' but only partial truth or partially true. We as human being are fallible and therefore do not have access to the 'truth' (if your an agnostic/skeptic/nihilist), but it is reasonable that we have access to some 'truth'.

If you can swallow the idea of us not having access to the truth (ie letting doubt of us having the truth to replace what you consider to be the truth), then you might be able to understand what they are talking about. Right now you think this doubt of the truth is in a way the same thing as believing in a truth, which unfortunately for you it isn't. It is plausible for non-humans (or non-limited sentient beings) have access to a 'truth' or 'truths' which we can not understand, so your idea of there not being any 'truths' is not an accurate depiction of agnosticism/skepticism. Agnostics and skeptics are aware we only have access to partial truths or what is true so therefore they do not bother trying to say that they have access to the truth but only access to partial truths.

Another way to put it, the world is much, much, much more complicated than we can understand so it is pretty much a given that any 'truths' we try to find will be distorted versions of what the actual 'truth' is. Hopefully this clears up things for you. :D

He knows more than you do. He has a masters degree -- in PHILOSOPHY!
--Bitter Crank

Whoever this person is that you are talking about I would like to talk to them so that too could learn a thing or two from them. :D

In conclusion, then, "science" has become an honorific term that is exploited and abused, including "scientists" themselves (to promote their social status image as a modern priest of knowledge of sorts, something some will not easily let go of), when in fact this term cannot be uncontroversially defined and has no practical use. It is time to transition away from this term and embrace a more anarchistic and nominalistic conception of inquiry. (A better term for a "scientist" is a "researcher").
--darthbarracuda

I think you are confusing the concepts of what some people think is 'science' and the scientific process/methodology itself. In reality scientific methodology is about speculating on what might be true (although we really don't need 'science' this part since we would do it anyways) and then go about trying to determine what is and isn't true through rigorous testing. In a way science itself is pretty boring and at times may seem useless but it IS useful in providing evidence as to what is and isn't true.

What you are having problems with is the "filler" so to speak of which people create in the absence of what people wish science would do but doesn't. Such things as morality, answers to some of the big questions in life,etc.,etc. Science isn't a religion, science doesn't change reality to suit our needs (although we try and use it to do so), and science doesn't fix the human condition. If your upset at people saying stupid things and other issues with the human condition then it might be helpful to understand that it is a problem with the human condition and not with science that you are having a problem with. In a way it is kind of like mixing up a screwdriver for a hammer, or a hammer for a screwdriver and then getting frustrated as to why it doesn't seem to be working right when in reality it is not the right tool for the job you are using it for.

In a nutshell science works and is useful, it just may not be as useful in the way you are trying to use it since it is not made to deal with issues with the human condition directly.

It is funny, but the truth is an ACTUAL free market economy could be a good thing IF the powers that be would really let it exist (and in some ways no matter what it does to a limited extent, but I'll remark about that later).

No matter who is in charge, it is a GIVEN they will do WHATEVER it takes to allow the effects of the market/economy/etc to increase their wealth and power while at the same time restrict/limit it if it threatens them. The easiest way to look at it is that a FREE market is only FREE as long as the people that own it DON'T have a need to manipulate it to their own advantage. Another way to look at it, if you have a frontier economy without anyone being able to control it is more or less 'free', but likely limited in what is available. And when you live in developed/'civilized' countries what you can buy and sell is (as well as how you do it) is determined by what is in the best interest of people that have money and or power choose it to be.

For example, in some countries certain items might be common enough for them to be traded inexpensively by locals, however traders that sell them elsewhere may limit the number of these items to foreigners who might get the idea of buying a lot of them and selling them elsewhere. I believe such activity is called 'gray markets' and an example of this is buying 'international' versions of a college text book instead of paying the full price of it in the United States. Also pharmaceuticals in socialized counties are often cheaper that their US counter parts as well because such countries REFUSE to pay for development research costs yet demand to have access to the same drugs as we have here.

Anyways if you remove ALL restricts you are left with what is know as the BLACK MARKET. In reality the black market is actually the only really free market there is, however since the black market includes human trafficking and things like murder for hire obviously the concept of being 'FREE' in a free market has some contradictions. If anyone reading has heard of Silk Roads they can understand some of the benefits and dangers of such things.

The irony I think is that MANY people think they are happy with 'FREE' markets until they are afraid of how many OTHER people will indulge in their vices/crimes/etc. when there is nobody to stop them. Of course, they usually don't worry about the same thing about themselves (although if they do they are likely little wiser than some other that haven't experienced such things)

To me I like to think of it sort of like having a cop/ arbitrator/sheriff available when things go wrong between people. While in some places there are enough people that will step in to take care of a problem when such a person isn't there (in which case they are the 'virtual' arbitrator for whatever reason), if such a person isn't there then the matter has to be solved by whatever means by the people who are there; which can be uglier than if an arbitrator is there to resolve it.

Of course that doesn't mean that the acting arbitrator is 'fair' or not just a strong man themselves, but is just silly to think that EVERYONE will always play nicely in any market and any group of perhaps twenty people or more won't have their own problems where someone will have to act as an arbitrator from time to time.

IMHO, people that think that a 'free' market (instead of a black market) can exist without arbitrators are either just trying to FOOL themselves for whatever reasons OR they themselves act as the ARBITRATOR of whatever they run but they don't want anyone interfering with what they do. In either case it is a DO AS I SAY NOT AS I DO situation since they obviously what some protections from a completely unregulated market (such as not having to worry about having too many contaminated substances in the food they eat), yet they don't want to be bothered by anyone telling them what to do.

For me it is just a given that there will almost always be arbitrators/cops of one sort or another in many of the places I go whether I like it or not. Perhaps if I had something that I didn't like people messing with it I might think like the people who like to dream what it would be like if they didn't exist or at least the one's that bother them didn't exist.

I agree here, but this is when the discussion of the transcendental dialectic begins, whereby is it not a compelling premise that it is a necessary condition that our existence can be reasonably concluded as having formed by a causal sequence returning back to the unknown yet substantive formation of the universe? We can conclude that God being a man on a cloud or the trinity etc are the illusions of reason as we are able to trace the source as rational, autonomous beings following a synthesis between us and consciousness of the world, and the possibility of transcendental reflection for ourselves is practically indispensable epistemologically, but I am not convinced that we simply stop at the point of being aware of our limitations but rather continue - morally - toward the ideal, making God necessary for perfecting our moral position.

What do you think of this? http://staffweb.hkbu.edu.hk/ppp/ksp1/KSP5.html — TimeLine

Well, without a transcendent God to tell us what to do, we merely have to reject salvation and become the homunculus we always have been. Such a process is not that different then what Abraham had to do when he found God and let God save him, which merely causes one transcendence to be replaced with another transcendence, or one salvation to be used instead of another salvation.depending on how one looks at it. God has been used as a type of magic feather to allow us to do the things that we might not think of doing or perhaps not think ourselves capable of doing without 'God' guiding us (although what we have and and haven't been able to do may not be that impressive by some peoples standards), but whether we still need to continue holding onto our magic feathers may be dependent on each individual themselves. For some the answer may be 'yes', but for others the answer could be 'no'.

When I say, "It would appear that might does make right" that should not be taken as an endorsement. I heartily disapprove of "Might Makes Right" thinking. But it isn't wise to think that just because the noble unarmed occupy the highest moral ground that they stand much of a chance against the lowlifes down in the valley who are armed to the teeth and are not burdened by a sickly inability to use force.

Sometimes the noble bearers of goodness, truth, and light have arranged to be well armed, and manage to vanquish the forces of darkness, falsehoods, and evil. At other times the nobles end up in a gulag somewhere, or worse. Ecclesiastes says, "I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.

Whether we are right or wrong, strong or weak, we can't be altogether sure of how we will fare in the conflicts to come.

There are clearly advantages to being mighty, and having the prerogative to write history, at least for a while. We have to decide whether we'd rather be right (whether we win or not). Personally, I'd rather be right, even if it means a trip to the gulag. — Bitter Crank

I think we agree enough and you are aware enough of the issue(s) for me not want to argue with you more than I have already. :)

The magic-- at least for me, is that there is no ultimate explanation. Seeking explanations for why things are as they are and exactly how they are as they are, is in my opinion what pushed humanity forward to where it is at today. Thinking about the unimaginable scale of the universe is a wonder in itself.

I believe that people have religious experiences, that logic and reason are regulatory of thought, but do not constitute thought. Logic,reason & language cannot fully describe our experiences in life, love or death, any such attempts always leaves something out-- the magic. — Cavacava

I like some mystery as much as the next person, but sometimes it help to know how something works if you need to do something about it.

The good thing is as long as we are human beings (or something close to it) there will always be some mystery in the world around us, so the idea of having SOMETHING MYSTERIOUS about the world around us is a non-issue as far as I can tell. :D

Do you realise just how ridiculous that sounds? So, the futility of existence is a justification that intelligence and reasonably, well-thought out and commonsensical behaviour is pointless. — TimeLine

I can imagine it may not make any sense to you if you can not understand the context/narrative it is used in but part of the reason I said it was to see if you could UNDERSTAND the other contexts that exist other than your ow,n which apparently you can not.

Just because a person is a prisoner doesn't mean it is a given for them to dream of escape or a for them to come with reasons to do what they do even if there is little purpose for them doing other than for them to retain some resemblance of sanity.

For the evidence available to us, is highly plausible and even probable that many of actions serve no long term purpose other than allowing us to get from one day to the next and some peoples lives many not have any purpose at all. While it isn't a given that all of our lives serve no purpose whatsoever, neither is it a given that it isn't true.

What for? You will be forgotten in fifty years anyway, so lets just shut off into hedonism and die fat, old and stupid surrounded by idiots. — TimeLine

I just wanted to give you a second chance since I just thought you had some kind of counter argument you wanted to assert other than I was wrong merely because you disagreed with what I've siad. However since you are unwilling or unable to say what it is I realize it can't be that good otherwise you would mention it.

Whether you like it ot not, you, I, and everyone else reading (as well as those who do not) WILL EVENTUALLY DIE either alone or if they are lucky surrounded by people who can do nothing about it (whether you want to call them idiots or not that is your choice) but life will go on and eventually we will be forgotten..one way or another. Even if you have a tombstone or can afford a monument in your name the name on it will fade and the rock it was made from will crumb as well in the near future. The only reasons such things are built is to give someone that remembers you something to visit while they are alive. After that such things become pretty moot.

So if one wants to clutch a bottle or a bible (or perhaps both and/or something else) , it might not be as big a deal as you think. Nobody gives a rat's backside as to whether someone that has passed did or did not do something (other than perhaps it making a difference on whether they may be able to indulge in their own vices and/or quality of life) and in the big picture of the human condition things probablely turned out how they did, because that is how they were going to turn out anyway. If you don't like the fact that I put it this way to you (instead of sugar coating it the way perhaps other people have), then that is just too bad for you.

There is no absolute, no reason why things are the way they are, no full explanation, things are just the way they are, everything could be otherwise. The explanation that things the way they are due to an ineffable real being is superstition. This is not to say there is no God, only that describing God as a real being is "magical thinking" , but there is reason to think that "magical thinking" might be essential in man, Kant intimates as much.

The only necessity is contingency. >:O — Cavacava

After studying philosophy and science for a little while, I've found it harder to believe their is the possibility of real 'magic' (things spontaneously, because someone wills it or something like that) even though the possibility of things that seem like miracles (ie. scientific explainable process that appear almost like magic yet are not) are still plausible as well as processes that appear like they are 'willed' into existence without but are still the later.

I know these nuances seem kind of trivial, however for me it always seems like there is little guy behind a curtain somewhere pushing button/pulling levers and no matter what the miracles or magic show is merely a show and not that much more. Why one might be in 'awe' of such things, I think one needs to be in just as much awe of our day to day 'miracles' instead of focusing on the 'magical' or spiritual ones that may not be what they think it to be.

Maybe this is the wrong way to look at it this way, since it does take at least some talent to create a magic show or any good show for that matter, but much 'magical thinking' isn't pragmatic with dealing with many problems if what we are looking at is really just a mundane process like any other mundane process.

If you can give me a reply to my last post and/or as to why it is wrong for me to consider myself both an atheist and an agnostic at the same time.

Where I am confused is the lack of Kant' transcendental method particularly the presupposition of concepts like causality that, yes, would lead to an infinite regress since it has no synthetic function and where our 'logic' discussion was referring to because we formulate or posit potential illusions to causal sequences, but his criticism is towards a priori knowledge, no? Kant' ontology through existence is not a predicate about being itself attempts to explain contingent experience, hence:

"Accordingly, there must be something whose nonexistence would cancel all internal possibility whatsoever. This is a necessary thing."

This is to say that ultimate reality, ultimate 'being' or God is necessary, and this is followed by the moral argument. — TimeLine

Would the answer that such questions are basically non-trivial problems (ie. basically unanswerable beyond merely speculating what may or may not be) be sufficient enough for your curiosity? Sure you can ask questions to such things but without the resources to answer them IMHO it is..more pragmatic to focus on things that can be dealt with than with such things that can not be.

I imagine that perhaps if there is a God (as well as such answers are pertinent to understanding him/her/it) , he/she/it might be angry as to not understanding his/her/their will but at the same time if God only provides me only with people to claim to know his/her/it's will instead of the real thing I (as well as others that believe as I do) have to uses whatever tools make my way through life. Whether it be hedonism, Machiavellianism,game theory, etc.etc

Just as theism some times tell us certain things are forbidden for us to worry about, so doesn't reason sometimes show us there are certain ..non-trivial issues that we are not able to resolve without some kind of additional resources at our disposal.

It would appear that might does make right. — Bitter Crank

I agree that under certain conditions when someone needs to do what needs to be done and/or break a few eggs to make an omelette, certain lesser evils by those who have power can be used to undermine someone else who potentially will do something worse as well as lynch mobs are justified under certain conditions to overthrow there oppressive leaders with violence if necessary.

But even under Machiavellianism/Sun Tzu's Art of War there are'right' and 'wrong' ways of using power. IMHO people that have power often use it to remain in power and to have leverage over others, and that can be worse then intelligently applied Machiavellianism; if there is such a thing.

It may be a little idealistic but I believe there may be a middle way between tyranny and utopia (or some other kind of society that is too nice/peace for it's own good) where people are experienced and skilled enough to do what needs to be done when it comes to security but also open and free enough to allow for most of it's people to reach their full potential. Supposedly the industrial countries of the world are a model of this but I believe this is more of a facade then the actual truth.

But you already knew this, you just assumed and what exemplifies your rational failure was that I was insulting you rather than showing you a very clear flaw in your argument. — TimeLine

I realize that I didn't explain that part of my post well enough, but nether did I consider it really all that important considering such things as that we (as well as anyone reading this) will most likely be dead in the next 50 to a 100 years and that very small nuances like that will never be read after that as well as forgotten by that time.

At any rate I will explain, I'm agnostic in the fact that I CAN NOT prove there is a God NOR can I prove there ISN'T a God. Also because of knowing the difficulties of proving such things I'm POSITIVE (or at least positive enough until someone that can explain it better) that NOBODY can do this either. In this regard I'm AGNOSTIC.

HOWEVER, because theism is aggressive/evangelical (and also because of certain bad personal experiences in the past) , I can not be merely idle when dealing with a religion or any other system of beliefs that potentially threatens the way I choose to live my life. That combined with the idea that they are wrong about a great number of things (such as they can know something about God's will without any possibility of knowing anything about him/her/it), makes me a bit of an ATHEIST.

Now while it is plausible for you to try to argue why a person can not be both an agnostic or an atheist (which personally I use both titles merely to deal with certain theists, who try to pigeon hole me as either and then undermine my position if I accept to ONLY be one of the two and could otherwise could care much less about it), I'm unsure as to the reason as to why it would be of much importance nor do I see any possible fruition if from some reason this becomes a debate between theism and atheism, which is the only other way I can imagine this issue going at the moment.

However since I can only speculate as to what point you are going to make, I will just leave it at that and let you explain your part.

No, might does not make right, just as having power does not give one authority. — darthbarracuda

Can you expand on your position more than that in order so we know WHY you disagree instead of merely knowing that you do disagree?

Does might make right? It depends if you are asking with respect to description or prescription. A descriptive statement is simply saying what is, making a mere observation. A prescriptive statement is saying what ought to be.

Machiavellianism is correct as a description of human history, as you pointed out; but it is wrong as a prescription for moral behaviour, because it violates the golden rule of ethics: do onto others as you want them to do onto you. — Samuel Lacrampe

I like to think of myself as a nice guy and since I was a kid I think I have been taught that it is best to be nice whenever I can, and perhaps sometimes even when it doesn't seem like the best thing for me to do. However I often find myself in situations where other people do not behave the same way and I wonder if it is best to just be an a-hole right back at them, or as they say "when in Rome do as the Romans do" (not that I'm implying that Romans are a-holes or jerks, or at least any more than the rest of us are).

I guess what I'm getting at is although there are some metrics that can be used to determine what description statement and/or actions are, the same is not true of prescriptive statement and/or actions which are merely arbitrary moral rules/behavior created by society as a sort of "rule of thumb" behavior to deal with the occasional break down of normal communication/negotiations, but are COMPLETELY ineffective when dealing with a there is a total social breakdown, people that wish to use brinkmanship, social manipulators, etc, etc.

If I'm missing something or you need to elaborate on your previous post let me know.

Sure, for example, when the explanatory power of an argument trumps someone's will power, then right makes might. — jkop

But even if the "explanatory power of an argument trumps someone's will power" that DOESN'T mean it is a GIVEN that it WILL be ENOUGH to overcome one's INDIFFERENCE AND/OR IGNORANCE.

Yes, under certain conditions the ability for one to be diplomatic and persuasive can be used INSTEAD of BRUTE force, but it isn't a given that it can ALWAYS be used instead. As Ted Roosevelt was know for saying "I speak softly, but carry a big stick" (ie I can use words or force depending on what is required for a situation). However this is merely a FORM of MACHIAVELLIAN ideals and not something to replace them.

Big Stick ideology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Stick_ideology

You see, Machiavellianism ( as well as Sun Tzu's The Art of War) already considers the POSSIBILITY of there being advantages of using diplomacy instead of war because going to war when it isn't needed could be a waste of resources, and the loss of such resources could in theory cause one to not be able to fight ANOTHER conflict if that conflict is unavoidable. However avoiding wars for such reasons isn't about being a NICE guy but more about using cold blooded calculations to maximize one's own security.

If I'm missing something or my analysis is incorrect please let me know.