KosherSwitch



  • <font face="Times New Roman" size="3">

    </font>

    <font size="3"><font face="Calibri">@blakeyrat said:

    Now you know, folks! You
    can practice cannibalism and still go to heaven, BUT ONLY IF YOU DO IT ON A
    CORPSE SOMEONE/SOMETHING ELSE KILLED!
    </font></font>

    <font size="3"><font face="Calibri">Yes, but what about accidental killing (i.e. not murder)? If
    you accidentally hit and killed a pedestrian while driving, you could eat him
    to get rid of the evidence. Or if he didn't die but he's in pain, you could
    euthanize him (still not murder), then eat him. But of course all that would
    probably be forbidden by the last Noahide law.<o:p></o:p></font></font><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">

    </font>



  • @Zmaster said:

    As an practicing orthodox Jew myself, let me weigh in on this.

    xaade summarized the technicalities pretty well; the issue most of you seem to be havng is the matter of hiding behind technicalities. And that’s not wrong. The vast majority of their target market (i.e. observant Jews) will see things the same way and not use this product, no matter how persuasive the manufacturer’s blurbs are. However—

    There are times when “hiding behind technicalities” is appropriate: situations of hardship where most of you would be saying, “God couldn’t have meant for you to leave the lights off now, could He?” Probably not, but the Rules don’t tend to have complex exception clauses; they just say, “Don’t.”

    It’s a different way of approaching rules and exceptions. You can have exceptions that need to be updated as technology develops, or you can set up eternal rules, but with loopholes—and depend on human judgement to decide when the use of the loophole is appropriate. Some religions take the first route; orthodox Judaism believes God treats us as responsible adults. (Some people’s behavior makes me wonder, though.)


  • Trolleybus Mechanic

    @Ben L. said:

    @blakeyrat said:
    cutting off bits of your body due to your beliefs

    I AM MISSING PART OF MY DICK

    DO YOU THINK I WOULD CUT PART OF MY DICK OFF

     

    Well, you do voluntarily use Go...

     



  • @Lorne Kates said:

    @Ben L. said:

    @blakeyrat said:
    cutting off bits of your body due to your beliefs

    I AM MISSING PART OF MY DICK

    DO YOU THINK I WOULD CUT PART OF MY DICK OFF

     

    Well, you do voluntarily use Go...

     

    Our IT Director seems to think it's only mere inertia / stupidity that keeps me doing things using .NET instead of Go (and a whole host of other technologies).



  • @jcsalomon said:

    @Zmaster said:

    As an practicing orthodox Jew myself, let me weigh in on this.

    xaade summarized the technicalities pretty well; the issue most of you seem to be havng is the matter of hiding behind technicalities. And that’s not wrong. The vast majority of their target market (i.e. observant Jews) will see things the same way and not use this product, no matter how persuasive the manufacturer’s blurbs are. However—

    There are times when “hiding behind technicalities” is appropriate: situations of hardship where most of you would be saying, “God couldn’t have meant for you to leave the lights off now, could He?” Probably not, but the Rules don’t tend to have complex exception clauses; they just say, “Don’t.”

    It’s a different way of approaching rules and exceptions. You can have exceptions that need to be updated as technology develops, or you can set up eternal rules, but with loopholes—and depend on human judgement to decide when the use of the loophole is appropriate. Some religions take the first route; orthodox Judaism believes God treats us as responsible adults. (Some people’s behavior makes me wonder, though.)

    What about Heaven? Can you confirm that Jews don't really believe in it?



  • Can someone tell me why it isn't kosher to, on sabbath, just have someone else around to do all the work?



  • @Zecc said:

    Can someone tell me why it isn't kosher to, on sabbath, just have someone else around to do all the work?

    It most certainly is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shabbos_goy

    Also, 'kosher' only refers to the suitability of food being consumed by an observant Jew, not to any other law or anything non-food related.



  • Something to add which might clear up a little confusion - there is no actual prohibition against Orthodox Jews using electric items on the sabbath in the written Jewish law. That's fairly obvious, since electricity wasn't around when the laws were written, but it means that the modern prohibiting of electricity on the sabbath is more of a safeguard to avoid transgression of the actual laws, rather than a strict no-no in itself.

    I think most Orthodox Jews see the sabbath prohibitions as a way of separating the day out and making it special, as much as anything else. The original idea behind, for example, not kindling or extinguishing a light was that you should get all your work and chores done ahead of time, so that on the sabbath there was nothing (or at least as little as possible) to interfere with the spiritual. What's regarded as a chore to be avoided does change with time - traditionally, one didn't bathe on the sabbath, but of course that comes from a time before daily bathing was common, when the idea was to bathe beforehand; now many Orthodox Jews are happy to shower because they do so every day.

    Most Orthodox Jews take not-using electricity on the sabbath seriously because of its role in our modern society more than anything else - it's one day a week when they're removing the secular and worldly from their lives - but if they can make sufficient distance between what they do normally, and what they do on the sabbath (as with the switch we're discussing here) then they may regard it as an acceptable compromise between necessity and spirituality (especially given that a common solution to the problem is leaving lights on for 25 hours, what with modern environmental sensibilities). Most Rabbis will tell you that you can't fool god, but you can decide for yourself precisely how you respect 'his' day.

    Oh, there's another use-case which is probably the main target market, and that's situations where use of electricity on the sabbath isn't prohibited, or is even required - saving lives, treating the sick, and so-on. If your kid wakes up ill in the middle of the night on the sabbath, you're supposed to turn on the light to see what's wrong (if necessary). If that need's more predictable, like with caring for a long-term patient, it's still permissible to use electricity as needed, but many Orthodox Jews would feel happier doing so via one of these switches. It's not required, but it's a way of giving a nod to the idea of sabbath separation.



  • @bridget99 said:

    What about Heaven? Can you confirm that Jews don't really believe in it?
    That's an interesting question which doesn't have a simple answer. The Wikipedia pages on the origins of Christianity and Judaism aren't a bad set, generally, and at least give a decent outline of a complex topic. Arguably, modern (Rabbinic) Judaism originated around the same time as Christianity, from the same common base - the protoJudaism which involved ritual animal sacrifice in a Temple, and so-on - in response to belief in an afterlife entering the religion. The end result for the Jews is that their religious tradition involves something not entirely unlike the Christian idea of Heaven (although no Hell), but it's not really in any of the word-of-god books. That's not a problem for a religion with an oral law tradition, but it does mean you'll get different answers to your question depending on who you ask - and then you'll also need to ask them how they define Heaven.



  • @bridget99 said:

    What about Heaven? Can you confirm that Jews don't really believe in it?

    This is not exactly like Christian ideas of Heaven and Hell, but Jews do believe in Divine reward and punishment after death; see http://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/4467/70.

    @argb said:
    @Zecc said:
    Can someone tell me why it isn't kosher to, on sabbath, just have someone else around to do all the work?

    It most certainly is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shabbos_goy

    Also, 'kosher' only refers to the suitability of food being consumed by an observant Jew, not to any other law or anything non-food related.

    The Wikipedia page does point out that, “Generally speaking, a Jew should respect a non-Jew's right to rest on the Sabbath, and therefore may not explicitly ask a non-Jew to perform a service prohibited by the Jewish law on the Sabbath.” In other words, using a non-Jew is another loophole, and there are guidelines on when this is or is not approriate.

    (Also, the Hebrew word kosher literally means “appropriate”, so Zecc’s use of the word was, in fact, kosher.)



  •  I fail to understand where someone got the notion that it was lawful to employ someone else to do work on a sabbath day. In fact, if one wishes to follow the law to the strictest, one could not use electricity at all on sabbaths, since someone would need to work in the powerplant. Exodus 31. 12-18 is one of the passages setting sabbath aside as a holiday (usually interpreted as Sunday in modern times... or at least I do). There is also a point of law that states that anyone living amongst the Jews is also under the restrictions of the law. ...can't seem to find the exact place right now. I'll post it later if I find it. In any case, I'd count this to prohibit hiring someone to work for you on during sabbath.

    As to the question of whether Jews believe to the existance of God, Heaven and Hell... well, the question is a bit odd, since the law presumes that one wishes to end up in Heaven. Therefore, why would someone who does not follow God care of the law? It's not just a law made by men. It's a guideline for a life that God would wish you to live. Also for a life that's relatively comfortable; there are serious rewards promised to those who follow the law. But again, that means the spirit of the law, not the letter.

     Perhaps I should also address the question of extinguishing fires. Leviticus 23:4-5 and Deuteronomium 22:1-4 speak of immediately helping those in need. I also seem to remember something about helping to lift an ox out of a well even on a sabbath day, but I can't find it right now.  Jesus made a good point about this one day in the synagogue.

     

    Edit:

    Just to clarify. There is a Hell. But it's not a lake of fire. It's the waiting room for the lake. It'll be emptied on judgement day. Revelations 20:12-15, if my memory serves. After the lake, I presume there is oblivion. And for those who go to Heaven, I presume there is the joy of... well, at least of finally getting to know why this world was made.



  • @bridget99 said:

    If you listen to a lot of Protestant clergy, they really do have this belief system where good people die and go straight to some community of saints that resembles a gated community of McMansions. It amazes me that anyone beyond the age of 5 believes this. The Jewish view ("God says do these things, but you're worm food either way") seems more rational.
     

    Well, neither look all that rational. But to be honest, I find rational to follow whatever crazy law a supposed God have said as long as the aforementioned God is omnipotent.Once you believe an omnipotent God have created thoses rules, I fail to see much rationality in seeking which set of law seem to make the more sense.

    (funny thing being that God have created logic and supposedly could have created a world where catholic/musulman/whatever faith is the only one who make sense, yet obviously haven't do so. Should we conclude it's confusing by design ?)



  • @TheLazyHase said:

    @bridget99 said:

    If you listen to a lot of Protestant clergy, they really do have this belief system where good people die and go straight to some community of saints that resembles a gated community of McMansions. It amazes me that anyone beyond the age of 5 believes this. The Jewish view ("God says do these things, but you're worm food either way") seems more rational.
     

    Well, neither look all that rational. But to be honest, I find rational to follow whatever crazy law a supposed God have said as long as the aforementioned God is omnipotent.Once you believe an omnipotent God have created thoses rules, I fail to see much rationality in seeking which set of law seem to make the more sense.

    (funny thing being that God have created logic and supposedly could have created a world where catholic/musulman/whatever faith is the only one who make sense, yet obviously haven't do so. Should we conclude it's confusing by design ?)

     

    The "omnipotential" part you can confirm by asking Him directly. But there is the catch that you will have to search a bit. Call it a safeguard, if you will; if miracles were automatic consequence for a well-defined action, someone would be constantly trying to get healings for <insert your favorite despot here> by holding God's disciples/priests/what-have-you hostage.

    The logic's there too, if you actually bother to read the Bible. Few do. We usually call them "christians". It's short for "Disciples of Christ". Benefits include miracles, eternal life and peace of mind.

     



  •  atheist .. Benefits include peace of mind.



  • @Helix said:

     atheist .. Benefits include peace of mind.

     

    I doubt it.

    I'm also amazed at the zeal of some atheists. I don't see any logical gain from trying to disprove religions that promote altruism. The only logical cause for such zeal that I can see is envy. And that would speak volumes against the theory that atheists could have a peace of mind.

     



  • @OldCrow said:

    The "omnipotential" part you can confirm by asking Him directly. But there is the catch that you will have to search a bit. Call it a safeguard, if you will; if miracles were automatic consequence for a well-defined action, someone would be constantly trying to get healings for <insert your favorite despot here> by holding God's disciples/priests/what-have-you hostage.
     

    Well, omnipotent mean he have created everything in the way he wanted. It does include logic and mathematics. So, if there is no mathematical or logical proof that God exist, it mean it is by design human aren't supposed to know if he exist, or at least not in a straightforward way. (note that no miracle are needed for that kind of proof. He could even embed in every human the certainty that God exist, which is obviously not the case).

    And if you actually have a way to communicate with him, it's good for you, but I don't have one. And reading (extract of a translated) bible didn't get me one either. Nor any observation or reasonment get me any proof that God exist. So, to choose between religions, I am more or less forced to rely on randomness. Choosing by convenience seem highly hypocritical for me

     Of course, there is also my current position, which is that there is no omnipotent god, but that they are genuine good advice in religious moral, like not killing people, not betraying your husband / wife, and not eating pork when refrigeration isn't available.

     



  • @OldCrow said:

    @Helix said:

     atheist .. Benefits include peace of mind.

     

    I doubt it.

    I'm also amazed at the zeal of some atheists. I don't see any logical gain from trying to disprove religions that promote altruism.

    Imagine you're surrounded by people who insist on throwing away large portions of their life's time sitting in a big room chanting. Imagine they feel obligated to pay a tithe of their money to sit in said room. Imagine that they are convinced that the world around them is ruled by magic, and that they spend their lives fearing the consequences of angering the source of that magic. Now, imagine that some of these people use their beliefs to justify horrible things done to others.

    That's kind of what life is like when you take off the god-coloured glasses.

    Oh, and the peace of mind is there, and "altruism" only applies to the sects that don't actively try to deny rights to others based on sexuality.



  • @TheLazyHase said:

     Of course, there is also my current position, which is that there is no omnipotent god, but that they are genuine good advice in religious moral, like not killing people, not betraying your husband / wife, and not eating pork when refrigeration isn't available.

     

    Sounds to me like you have an inner voice that tells you to do things... that warm, fuzzy feeling... or, if you decide to not follow it, the opposite feeling. Want to take a dive down the rabbit hole? Follow that voice.

     @Buttembly Coder said:

    Imagine you're surrounded by people who insist on throwing away large portions of their life's time sitting in a big room chanting. Imagine they feel obligated to pay a tithe of their money to sit in said room. Imagine that they are convinced that the world around them is ruled by magic, and that they spend their lives fearing the consequences of angering the source of that magic. Now, imagine that some of these people use their beliefs to justify horrible things done to others.

    That's kind of what life is like when you take off the god-coloured
    glasses.

    Oh, and the peace of mind is there, and "altruism" only applies to the
    sects that don't actively try to deny rights to others based on
    sexuality.

    That large portion of my life brings me great joy, actually. No-one else of my house does regular worship, so it's not peer pressure either; just mentioning so you can't grasp at that straw. No-one know whether I pay dividends (is that the right term for it in English?) or not; I pay them to receive for my finances the blessing that was promised by God. And believe me, it has been a blessing: I haven't seen a day of hunger or other need.

    "A tree is known by its fruit." And those who use the guise of religion to sate their lust for power obviously believe in nothing. After all, who in their right mind would do something like that to their god?: "What ever you do to these least ones amongst you, that you have done to me."

    So you claim that it is not altruism to attempt to save lost sheep from the sufferings of Hell? If one were to quietly watch as they defile themselves, it would be as taking part in their sin. 

     



  • @OldCrow said:

    That large portion of my life brings me great joy, actually. No-one else of my house does regular worship, so it's not peer pressure either; just mentioning so you can't grasp at that straw. No-one know whether I pay dividends (is that the right term for it in English?) or not; I pay them to receive for my finances the blessing that was promised by God. And believe me, it has been a blessing: I haven't seen a day of hunger or other need.

    "A tree is known by its fruit." And those who use the guise of religion to sate their lust for power obviously believe in nothing. After all, who in their right mind would do something like that to their god?: "What ever you do to these least ones amongst you, that you have done to me."

    So you claim that it is not altruism to attempt to save lost sheep from the sufferings of Hell? If one were to quietly watch as they defile themselves, it would be as taking part in their sin. 

     

    Don't accuse me of grasping for straws; I'm simply trying to explain why some atheists are so impassioned.

    I haven't seen a day of hunger or need either; and I'm a regular blasphemer. If it makes you feel better, you can pretend I'll see some recompense for that; I don't really care, I'm not afraid of boogeymen.

    But like I said, I'm just explaining how things look to the rest of us, as you expressed curiosity.

    I don't mind believers, I don't mind preachers, and I certainly don't mind people trying to help others. Most religious people are none of those, just people who were taught to fear something that I believe is not there.



  • @OldCrow said:

    And for those who go to Heaven, I presume there is the joy of... well, at least of finally getting to know why this world was made.

    I've always been curious: does your soul go to Heaven  as your conscience with all memories, to enjoy eternal life? What if you got Alzheimer? Then you spend the eternity senile and confused? What's good of that, then?

     



  • @OldCrow said:

    The logic's there too, if you actually bother to read the Bible. Few do. We usually call them "christians".

    What's the best way to make a person a non-believer? Have him read the whole Old Testament and New Testament. To see the atrocities and depravities described there done in the name of God. To see the hateful nature of the old man Peter. And so on.


  •  @alegr said:

    What's the best way to make a person a non-believer? Have him read the whole Old Testament and New Testament. To see the atrocities and depravities described there done in the name of God. To see the hateful nature of the old man Peter. And so on.

     

     I presume that you refer to the part where someone withheld part of a sum he'd promised to the church, and fell dead after hearing that God had seen him? If my memory serves, Peter did not touch the man. God might have, but that's between him and God... no pun intended.

    As for these "depravities", I'm going to need specific examples here. 

     @alegr said:

    I've always been curious: does your soul go to Heaven  as your conscience with all memories, to enjoy eternal life? What if you got Alzheimer? Then you spend the eternity senile and confused? What's good of that, then?

    Matthew 22:30. You don't drag your body to Heaven. Also, your view on the purpose of brains is a bit faulty. To use a parable, the brain is like one of those pilot-capsules in Neon Genesis Evangelion. It's an interface between your soul and your body. A faulty interface makes a mess of a lot of things. But it is your soul that goes to judgement, not your body. And I guess the souls that didn't prove themselves in this world will have to do it some other way.

     

    I'll throw a counter-question here. If humans were the result of evolution, why have such a thing a conscience? It serves evolutionarily no purpose whatsoever.

     

    Edit:

    P.S. And look to your left and then to your right. Do you really think that humans could have survived millions of years without driving themselves to extinction?



  • @OldCrow said:

    I'll throw a counter-question here. If humans were the result of evolution, why have such a thing a conscience? It serves evolutionarily no purpose whatsoever.

    Come on, seriously?  You see no evolutionary advantage in prefering mutually advantageous behavior for animals which live in groups?  For more on the topic, see e.g.

    http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismatheistsmorals/a/EvolutionMorals.htm

     Or just use google.


  • Considered Harmful

    This essay played a not-insignificant role in my conversion from Catholicism to Atheism. It's also fascinating in its own right, even if you reject all of his conclusions.

    (Hm, I preferred the old, plain black-and-white site layout.)



  • @OldCrow said:

    I'll throw a counter-question here. If humans were the result of evolution, why have such a thing a conscience? It serves evolutionarily no purpose whatsoever.

    If I'm nice to this person, they will help me, or at the very least leave me alone and treat me with dignity.

    If I piss off this person, they will refuse to help me, and may actually hurt me.

     

    To me, the interesting thing about Christianity is that it presents a curious duality: tales of a loving and benevolent God who smites with apprehension those who don't give Him lip-service; edicts to love thy neighbor as thyself alongside edicts about treating women and foreigners are property instead of people; the strict following of old laws in the name of a dude who said that the old laws are now void.


  • Considered Harmful

    @MiffTheFox said:

    To me, the interesting thing about Christianity is that it presents a curious duality: tales of a loving and benevolent God who smites with apprehension those who don't give Him lip-service; edicts to love thy neighbor as thyself alongside edicts about treating women and foreigners are property instead of people; the strict following of old laws in the name of a dude who said that the old laws are now void.


    I'll just leave this here.



  • @rakdver said:

    @OldCrow said:

    I'll throw a counter-question here. If humans were the result of evolution, why have such a thing a conscience? It serves evolutionarily no purpose whatsoever.

    Come on, seriously?  You see no evolutionary advantage in prefering mutually advantageous behavior for animals which live in groups?  For more on the topic, see e.g.

    http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismatheistsmorals/a/EvolutionMorals.htm

     Or just use google.

     

    I love a good argument.

    So, I took a look at what you linked.

    It seems to claim that morals have developed over recorded human history. I'd claim that this hasn't happened, seeing as there was still slavery in the U.S. as late as arount the Civil War. And women's rights, which were also mentioned... have they really improved, or could it be just a byproduct of the increased standard of living? You can see the state of women's rights in all the "underdeveloped" and tribal areas of the world, regardless of religion or lack thereof.

    And I doubt that chimpanzees have any sense of shame. Fear of getting caught is learned behaviour. The more interesting scenario is having a pile of money on the street with no clear owner and seemingly no chance of getting caugh, but that's much harder to test on a chimp.

    To conclude, I'd claim that altruism is evolutionarily a self-snuffing trait, like homosexuality (presuming no societal incentives otherwise).

    On the other hand, human capacity to adapting to odd circumstance is great. I'd claim most sexual depravities to be a result of a bad childhood, one way or another. The rest tend to be control-through-shame scenarios...

     



  • @Buttembly Coder said:

    Imagine you're surrounded by people who insist on throwing away large portions of their life's time sitting in a big room chanting. Imagine they feel obligated to pay a tithe of their money to sit in said room. Imagine that they are convinced that the world around them is ruled by magic, and that they spend their lives fearing the consequences of angering the source of that magic. Now, imagine that some of these people use their beliefs to justify horrible things done to others.

    WoW players?



  • @OldCrow said:

    If humans were the result of evolution, why have such a thing a conscience? It serves evolutionarily no purpose whatsoever.

    @OldCrow said:

    It seems to claim that morals have developed over recorded human history. I'd claim that this hasn't happened, seeing as there was still slavery in the U.S. as late as arount the Civil War. And women's rights, which were also mentioned... have they really improved, or could it be just a byproduct of the increased standard of living? You can see the state of women's rights in all the "underdeveloped" and tribal areas of the world, regardless of religion or lack thereof.

    Your original claim was that morals existed because of a divine design in humanity. You now claim that morals did not exist until recent times, or do not exist at all.

    Your argument, therefore, is that your god is either a recent creation of humanity, or does not exist at all.



  • @MiffTheFox said:

    If I'm nice to this person, they will help me, or at the very least leave me alone and treat me with dignity.

     

    Did that ever actually work? If it did, there would be no wars.

     @MiffTheFox said:

    To me, the interesting thing about Christianity is that it presents a curious duality: tales of a loving and benevolent God who smites with apprehension those who don't give Him lip-service; edicts to love thy neighbor as thyself alongside edicts about treating women and foreigners are property instead of people; the strict following of old laws in the name of a dude who said that the old laws are now void.

     

    Obvious troll is obvious:

    - God specifically states that He does not want lip service. He prefers faithfulness.

    -  The Law states that all slaves shall be freed on every seventh year. It also states that rapists should be killed. It also gives females the right to inherit their parents. I see that as an improvement, if the acconts of other civilizations of the time are accurate in the least.

    - That second dude you speak of said "Nothing of the law shall disappear; before the law disappears, the sky and earth will" ...or something like that.

     



  • @joe.edwards said:

    This essay played a not-insignificant role in my conversion from Catholicism to Atheism. It's also fascinating in its own right, even if you reject all of his conclusions.

    (Hm, I preferred the old, plain black-and-white site layout.)

     

    Too little time to counter all of that here. But something struck my eye. It connects the spiritual to the immaterial through unobservability. But this is an infeasible claim in light of the existance of radio waves, their effects on human metabolism and psyche (although this is debated by the FCC et.al.), and their discovery so late in history.

     

    Or in short: The fact that you can't see it just means that you haven't looked hard enough. A couple years ago most of the scientific community believed that aurora borealis could not possibly cause audible noise. And yet a million people (living in arctic areas) can testify to the existence of these sounds. Isn't science fun?

    Edit: Forgot to include quote.



  • @Buttembly Coder said:

    Your original claim was that morals existed because of a divine design in humanity. You now claim that morals did not exist until recent times, or do not exist at all.

    Your argument, therefore, is that your god is either a recent creation of humanity, or does not exist at all.

     

    You didn't read what he linked, apparently. Or you might be trolling. Reader may decide.

    Opposite to how you decided to interpret it, I claimed that morality has not developed in the timeframe that we have recorded history of.

    Therefore, my claim is that God is eternal. And therefore I must claim that "morality" is now in the same state amongst man as it has been from the beginning, after Adam and Eve.

     



  • @OldCrow said:

    But it is your soul that goes to judgement, not your body.

    What's your understanding fo "soul"?

     @OldCrow said:

    I'll throw a counter-question here. If humans were the result of evolution, why have such a thing a conscience? It serves evolutionarily no purpose whatsoever.

    Conscience as self-awareness or conscience as considering needs and feelings of others and choosing not to harm them?

    1. Self-awareness is observed in many animals, especially mammals. Well, humans are mammals too, relatives of great apes. Fun fact: humans have 23 chromosome pairs, while apes have 24 pairs. Why two extra? Because two pairs of apes correspond to one pair of humans, each in that is two corresponding chromosomes fused together, which is seen by specific DNA sequences markers. Accounting for that, all coresponding genes are arranged in pretty much the same way.

    You can ask: Is it even possible that two pairs will fuse together into one pair? Yes. Actually,  there is a described case of a family clan in China with 44 chromosomes - result of a similar fusion. One could argue that that family is a separate species now.

    2. Consideration for others is a social behavior trait seen in many social animals. And many humans just lack such consideration. Some of those even think they're Christians.

    @OldCrow said:

    P.S. And look to your left and then to your right. Do you really think that humans could have survived millions of years without driving themselves to extinction?

    Does not work in UK. It's not an inheritable trait, it's a learned behavior. Learned behaviors are observed in many animals. Even urban dogs can learn to cross roads safely (and ride trams and commuter trains to their preferred scavenging place).

     



  • @OldCrow said:

    @MiffTheFox said:

    If I'm nice to this person, they will help me, or at the very least leave me alone and treat me with dignity.

     

    Did that ever actually work? If it did, there would be no wars.

    I'd say it works. The causes of war are extremely complex, but generally it can be summed up to "we want something (land/resources) that you have" and/or "you don't think you should exist anymore (or at least in your current state)".

    Wars are generally won by this principle, too. Think of all the well-established, developed nations today that are bureaucratic (governed by (at least a few of) the people) vs monarchical (governed by a single person).

    @MiffTheFox said:

    To me, the interesting thing about Christianity is that it presents a curious duality: tales of a loving and benevolent God who smites with apprehension those who don't give Him lip-service; edicts to love thy neighbor as thyself alongside edicts about treating women and foreigners are property instead of people; the strict following of old laws in the name of a dude who said that the old laws are now void.

    Obvious troll is obvious:

    - God specifically states that He does not want lip service. He prefers faithfulness.

    -  The Law states that all slaves shall be freed on every seventh year. It also states that rapists should be killed. It also gives females the right to inherit their parents. I see that as an improvement, if the acconts of other civilizations of the time are accurate in the least.

    - That second dude you speak of said "Nothing of the law shall disappear; before the law disappears, the sky and earth will" ...or something like that.

     

    The law also says that people who wear garments containing multiple fabric should be killed. And people who work on Saturday.

    I couldn't find the specific passage where Jesus talks specifically about Jewish law, but as a condolence I say go look at John 8. It's pretty relevant to today's Christians too.



  • So let me get this straight.

    It's not OK to press a switch once to turn on a light.

    It IS OK to press a switch 1d(infinity) times to turn on a light.

    Somehow doing an indeterminate amount of "work" which is never less than the original amount of "work" is considered "not work"?



  •  @alegr said:

    What's your understanding fo "soul"?

    I suppose you could call it consciousness. But what else is included, I'm afraid I can not give a sufficient answer for this.

     @alegr said:


    Conscience as self-awareness or conscience as considering needs and feelings of others and choosing not to harm them?

     

    "self-awareness" = consciousness.  "conscience" =  considering needs and feelings of others and choosing not to harm them. At least according to Wikipewdia. I think I used them correctly. Pointme my error, please, if I didn't, for I'd like to correct it.

      @alegr said:

    1. Self-awareness is observed in many animals, especially mammals. Well, humans are mammals too, relatives of great apes. Fun fact: humans have 23 chromosome pairs, while apes have 24 pairs. Why two extra? Because two pairs of apes correspond to one pair of humans, each in that is two corresponding chromosomes fused together, which is seen by specific DNA sequences markers. Accounting for that, all coresponding genes are arranged in pretty much the same way.

    You can ask: Is it even possible that two pairs will fuse together into one pair? Yes. Actually,  there is a described case of a family clan in China with 44 chromosomes - result of a similar fusion. One could argue that that family is a separate species now.

    2. Consideration for others is a social behavior trait seen in many social animals. And many humans just lack such consideration. Some of those even think they're Christians.

    1. Only seen in some apes, in a limited fashion. I haven't heard of any others figuring out a mirror. But this does not prove much, if you can't get full communication with another species and thus get at the conscience part of the equation.

    Fun fact: the DNA-similarities based family tree of species and the traditional family tree clash rather grandiosely. Seems more like code-reuse than evolution. There's a full book on this, but I've only seen the Finnish translation, so I couldn't point you to it. Sorry.

    2. I agree on the "think they're Christians" part. Actually, I like to draw a line between "religion" and actually knowing God. Neither means the other. Even if all were to share the same Bible, even the same translation, there will always be pharisees.

      @alegr said:

    @OldCrow said:

    P.S. And look to your left and then to your right. Do you really think that humans could have survived millions of years without driving themselves to extinction?

    Does not work in UK. It's not an inheritable trait, it's a learned behavior. Learned behaviors are observed in many animals. Even urban dogs can learn to cross roads safely (and ride trams and commuter trains to their preferred scavenging place).


    I rather meant that given sufficient time, human race would have destroyed itself already, presumably by war and strange cults. And a million years is certainly long enough.

     



  • @havokk said:

    I think that using that sort of pedantic dickweedery to get around your god's law is just as much of a sin as breaking the law. Or to put it another way, what sort of respect is a person showing their religion by obeying the letter of the law instead of the spirit of the law?

    You probably wouldn't approve of the idea of an [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eruv"]eruv[/url], then.


  • Considered Harmful

    @OldCrow said:

    I haven't heard of any others figuring out a mirror.

    Dolphins




  • @MiffTheFox said:

    The causes of war are extremely complex, but generally it can be summed up to "we want something (land/resources) that you have" and/or ...

     That kind of contradicts the "live and let live" that I understood your claim to the origins of conscience to be based on. Did I misunderstand?

    @MiffTheFox said:

    The law also says that people who wear garments containing multiple fabric should be killed. And people who work on Saturday.

    I couldn't find the specific passage where Jesus talks specifically about Jewish law, but as a condolence I say go look at John 8. It's pretty relevant to today's Christians too.

     

    Spirit of the law, folks. I get the feeling that the "more than one thread" has to do with cleanliness and hygiene in some way. But to say one way or the other would require a biologist, which I'm not. More likely causes are vanity and banning some kind of ritual clothing. I'm not an expert here, really.

    And John 8. ...The woman caught for adultery. This one was explained to me once... too bad I can't remember it. I think it had to do with merc. After all, Jesus was not here to make the law void but to fulfill it. Also, consider this: the law required that both the male and the female should be stoned. But only the female was brought forth. This speaks volumes, I should say.

    For those who repent and turn their ways, there is mercy and salvation. "Go, and sin no more", if memory serves.

     



  • @joe.edwards said:

    @OldCrow said:
    I haven't heard of any others figuring out a mirror.
    Dolphins
     

    Didn't make it to the school-books in time for me to see it back in the day. Nice to know.

    Also irrelevant to the point after admitting that there are primates that do the same.

    But nice to know anyway. Thanks.



  • @OldCrow said:

     @alegr said:

    What's your understanding fo "soul"?

    I suppose you could call it consciousness. But what else is included, I'm afraid I can not give a sufficient answer for this.

    What is a minimum amount of conciousness to have a soul? If you don't have conciousness (like in early stages of fetal development) do you have soul? If your brain is destroyed (Exhibit A: Terri Schiavo) do you still have soul? Why was she kept alive?

    @OldCrow said:

    Only seen in some apes, in a limited fashion. I haven't heard of any others figuring out a mirror. But this does not prove much, if you can't get full communication with another species and thus get at the conscience part of the equation.

    Elephants. Also, dogs realize that the image in the mirror is not an actual animal. Basically, it requires some amount of brain development. Human infants don't get that either, but figure it out later

    @OldCrow said:

    Fun fact: the DNA-similarities based family tree of species and the traditional family tree clash rather grandiosely. Seems more like code-reuse than evolution.
    .

    I don't get what you're trying to say here. You understand that genetic differences between related species are not big? Just because they're not created by the deity from scratch. Accumulated mutations in the genotype cause changes in phenotype.

    @OldCrow said:

    I rather meant that given sufficient time, human race would have destroyed itself already, presumably by war and strange cults.

    Humans has been close to that many times. And locally, they've been able to destroy the whole populations and civilizations. I find it amusing, though, that many Jewish (especially Orthodox) totally approve of Amalekites genocide.


  •  

     @alegr said:

    What is a minimum amount of conciousness to have a soul? If you don't have conciousness (like in early stages of fetal development) do you have soul? If your brain is destroyed (Exhibit A: Terri Schiavo) do you still have soul? Why was she kept alive?

    No idea. Not my area of expertise. No time to get into that today, as I'm in GMT+2. I tend to leave those decisions to God. I'd point out Phineas Gage though.

      @alegr said:

    Elephants. Also, dogs realize that the image in the mirror is not an actual animal. Basically, it requires some amount of brain development. Human infants don't get that either, but figure it out later

     

    Dogs don't actually figure out mirrors. They ignore it as "inconsequential but familiar beings behind glass walls". Humans figure it out as soon as they're old enough to express themselves. Expecting more would be folly, but this proves nothing for either of us.

    @alegr said:


     I don't get what you're trying to say here. You understand that genetic differences between related species are not big? Just because they're not created by the deity from scratch. Accumulated mutations in the genotype cause changes in phenotype.

    They're not big, but the cumulative changes in DNA don't match in the traditional family tree of species. There are chunks of code seemingly missing from the middle of a trunk or two. And then the same chunksappear in completely unrelated species. Or in short, according to DNA family trees, fly + cat = duck. And we know that that is unlikely. So, on further investigation of the presumed DNA developments, also presuming that evolution did happen, there are two options left. First is a super-creature, from which all other species have come through substraction only. The second is getting the same DNA-sequence in independent species by accident. Neither option seems likely.

    So, to sum up. Intelligent creation and subsequent code-reuse across species seems more feasible than evolution. This also explains why the gene pool seems to get narrower for some species.

     

    Also, just in case carbon timing is mentioned while I sleep: There is no actually verifiable reference sample, since no-one has a time-machine to get one with.



  •  Religious people have no morals, they only have fear of punishment.

     Atheists do the right thing because it's the right thing to do. not because they are afraid of an old man - father figure in the sky, be he Santa Clause, Jehova, or some other diety that you obey like a child afraid of a spanking.

     Atheists are far better people, acting out of love, trust and understanding for their fellow man, instead of the fear, suspicion, and hate caused by the mental illnesses known as religion.

     The only differance between Religions, Cults, and Insanity is how many people share your delusions.

     In response to a bit of the last post, I believe Viruses can carry snippets of DNA between animals, hence 'swine flu', 'bird flu' etc. But I am not a molecular biologist. I just think the glow-in-the-dark bunnys with jellyfish DNA are interesting.



  • @OldCrow said:

    Or in short, according to DNA family trees, fly + cat = duck. And we know that that is unlikely. So, on further investigation of the presumed DNA developments, also presuming that evolution did happen, there are two options left. First is a super-creature, from which all other species have come through substraction only. The second is getting the same DNA-sequence in independent species by accident. Neither option seems likely.

    So, to sum up. Intelligent creation and subsequent code-reuse across species seems more feasible than evolution. This also explains why the gene pool seems to get narrower for some species.

    Examples?

    @OldCrow said:

    Also, just in case carbon timing is mentioned while I sleep: There is no actually verifiable reference sample, since no-one has a time-machine to get one with.

    Oh, there has been reference samples. Like pieces of wood from known dated historical artifacts. Or trees dated by their rings.

  • ♿ (Parody)

    @bgodot said:

     Religious people have no morals, they only have fear of punishment

    And you take that on faith?

    @bgodot said:

    Atheists do the right thing because it's the right thing to do. not because they are afraid of an old man - father figure in the sky, be he Santa Clause, Jehova, or some other diety that you obey like a child afraid of a spanking.

    What if it's not the right thing?

    @bgodot said:

    The only differance between Religions, Cults, and Insanity is how many people share your delusions.

    The atheist cult seems to be growing.



  • @bgodot said:

     Religious people have no morals, they only have fear of punishment.

     Atheists do the right thing because it's the right thing to do. not because they are afraid of an old man - father figure in the sky, be he Santa Clause, Jehova, or some other diety that you obey like a child afraid of a spanking.

     Atheists are far better people, acting out of love, trust and understanding for their fellow man, instead of the fear, suspicion, and hate caused by the mental illnesses known as religion.

     The only differance between Religions, Cults, and Insanity is how many people share your delusions.

     In response to a bit of the last post, I believe Viruses can carry snippets of DNA between animals, hence 'swine flu', 'bird flu' etc. But I am not a molecular biologist. I just think the glow-in-the-dark bunnys with jellyfish DNA are interesting.

    I'm not sure I agree with categorical statements like that. But it is weird how so many people are willing to be against things because of the ambiguous pronouncements of a powerful alien who may or may not have walked the Earth 2,000 years ago, while so few people are willing to say things like "I'm against abortion because I like babies." I think I would sympathize more with the latter sort of argument than with the former, space alien-based one. I actually agree with many of the behavioral specifications made by the Roman Catholic Church, but their (mandatory) beliefs about past events and the nature of the universe are absurd. (Is it really that effing hard to just say "I don't know"?) On the other hand, there are many, many self-proclaimed Catholics who say they believe in the Resurrection, and Transubstantiation, etc., but have much more liberal codes of behavior than I do. Who's crazy? You... make... the call!



  • @bridget99 said:

    I'm not sure I agree with categorical statements like that. But it is weird how so many people are willing to be against things because of the ambiguous pronouncements of a powerful alien who may or may not have walked the Earth 2,000 years ago, while so few people are willing to say things like "I'm against abortion because I like babies." I think I would sympathize more with the latter sort of argument than with the former, space alien-based one.

    Except nobody's oging to come out and say "I'm against homosexuals getting married because I believe marriage is about a man dominating women" or "I'm adamant you join my religion because that's how it propagates".



  • @MiffTheFox said:

    @bridget99 said:
    I'm not sure I agree with categorical statements like that. But it is weird how so many people are willing to be against things because of the ambiguous pronouncements of a powerful alien who may or may not have walked the Earth 2,000 years ago, while so few people are willing to say things like "I'm against abortion because I like babies." I think I would sympathize more with the latter sort of argument than with the former, space alien-based one.

    Except nobody's oging to come out and say "I'm against homosexuals getting married because I believe marriage is about a man dominating women" or "I'm adamant you join my religion because that's how it propagates".

    I'm against people disagreeing with me because it makes all my "facts" look wrong.



  • @Ben L. said:

    @MiffTheFox said:
    @bridget99 said:
    I'm not sure I agree with categorical statements like that. But it is weird how so many people are willing to be against things because of the ambiguous pronouncements of a powerful alien who may or may not have walked the Earth 2,000 years ago, while so few people are willing to say things like "I'm against abortion because I like babies." I think I would sympathize more with the latter sort of argument than with the former, space alien-based one.

    Except nobody's oging to come out and say "I'm against homosexuals getting married because I believe marriage is about a man dominating women" or "I'm adamant you join my religion because that's how it propagates".

    I'm against people disagreeing with me because it makes all my "facts" look wrong.

    I'm against people.



  • Well, still better than a political discussion.


Log in to reply