General Poker Discussion Poker Forums

As far as I am concerned, all you need is eyes and a brain. Just watch it.

this video uses the "pull" comment by the firefighter to imply he was using code for demolition. this debunking page says "pull" is also a term for pulling down an unstable building with cables if it's unsafe to go inside and set charges. they "pulled" other buildings that day (or was it later?). and the firefighters probably would have taken down WTC7 with cables if it hadn't fallen by itself.

so why is there a need for an alternative theory when it would have been destroyed anyway?

Right but we can assume there is at least a general moral standard of good

If you are saying because we all have similar goals and experiences, then I agree. If you are talking about a supreme being (God) who dictates moral law, then I'd disagree.

If you are talking about a supreme being (God) who dictates moral law, then I'd disagree.

not by God, by nature. it's natural for us to squint our eyes, close our mouths and hold our breath when we see a dead animal on the road, even if we're passing by in a car with the windows up at 60 mph.

Do you know if you're a psychopath? (How We Decide by Jonah Lehrer)

aka not being a psychopath?

Also, you realise that you're making a value judgement about value judgments being impossible, right?

I didn't say value judgements were impossible. It's ok that you don't understand.

Right but we can assume there is at least a general moral standard of good

You are free to assume anything you want.

this video uses the "pull" comment by the firefighter to imply he was using code for demolition. this debunking page says "pull" is also a term for pulling down an unstable building with cables if it's unsafe to go inside and set charges. they "pulled" other buildings that day (or was it later?). and the firefighters probably would have taken down WTC7 with cables if it hadn't fallen by itself.

so why is there a need for an alternative theory when it would have been destroyed anyway?

this is wrong (the Debunking page is about as convoluted as the alternative theory pages). it has nothing to do with pulling with cables. Silverstein (the building owner) said later he suggested they "pull" [the plug] on the firefighting operation because he didn't want more loss of life. he didn't order them away tho, it was just a suggestion. the firefighters on the scene determined when to stop fighting the fire because the building was leaning and had a large section "scooped out" on the South side.

"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it (the attempt to save the building). And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."
http://youtu.be/8T2_nedORjw?t=3m15s

and it has to be said, why would Silverstein say in an interview that he suggested they blow up the building by using a demolition term? just a Freudian slip? the sentence doesn't even make sense if read that way:

"we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just [end the charade and blow it up]." ???

A little of topic but a really interesting book arguing objective morality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moral_Landscape

Lecture he gave on it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTKf5cCm-9g&ob=av3e

i'm 30 min into Harris' lecture right now, and it all sounds like a mess of a ramble to me. he's making nice sounding arguments (forms), but i haven't heard a single finished thought yet. this is the worst type of philosophy imo. but maybe he's just an unprepared speaker.

and another thing, he starts the speech off saying "making women wear cloth bags is bad," yet makes zero justification for this statement except that "it's bad's in every sense ... forcing people to wear cloth bags is bad... clearly not an optimal strategy for producing happy, healthy, confident people." this is such a absolute and completely subjective statement on a minor criticism of Muslim culture that it's really disappointing this guy is thought to be a well-respected thinker.

Yeah I agree, I mean I'm way too dumb to understand any of this/this thread (although I think a lot of the latter is coming from poor use of language) but it's an interesting perspective that I haven't heard talked about. I will say though this is an idea way better expressed in a book, I mainly put the lecture in there for the lazy/to introduce the topic.

wtf. this guy is a believer all right.

In The End of Faith, Harris criticizes the Jewish faith and its followers:

"The gravity of Jewish suffering over the ages, culminating in the Holocaust, makes it almost impossible to entertain any suggestion that Jews might have brought their troubles upon themselves. This is, however, in a rather narrow sense, the truth. [...] the ideology of Judaism remains a lightning rod for intolerance to this day. [...] Jews, insofar as they are religious, believe that they are bearers of a unique covenant with God. As a consequence, they have spent the last two thousand years collaborating with those who see them as different by seeing themselves as irretrievably so. Judaism is as intrinsically divisive, as ridiculous in its literalism, and as at odds with the civilizing insights of modernity as any other religion. Jewish settlers, by exercising their "freedom of belief" on contested land, are now one of the principal obstacles to peace in the Middle East."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris_(author)#Judaism

on the bright side, at least he hates Islam and Christianity just as much...

i dislike militant "rationalists" like Harris. to be fair, i lashed out at all religion when younger as well, but i at least restrained myself from making statements not appreciably different from antisemitism and hate speech. it's unfortunate to see some people be misled into believing this is where rational thinking should lead.

positivism and sincerity is more civilized and makes for a better world imo.

Madalyn Murray (later O'Hair), wrote a document used in the court case Murray v. Curlett, 1961. It reads, in part:

"An Atheist loves himself and his fellow man instead of a god. An Atheist knows that heaven is something for which we should work now - here on earth - for all men together to enjoy. An Atheist thinks that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue, and enjoy it. An Atheist thinks that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment. Therefore, he seeks to know himself and his fellow man rather than to know a god. An Atheist knows that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An Atheist knows that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man. He wants an ethical way of life. He knows that we cannot rely on a god nor channel action into prayer nor hope for an end to troubles in the hereafter. He knows that we are our brother's keeper and keepers of our lives; that we are responsible persons, that the job is here and the time is now."

Yeah I agree, I mean I'm way too dumb to understand any of this/this thread (although I think a lot of the latter is coming from poor use of language)

don't underestimate yourself, mitch. the burden of clear communication lies with the speaker, not the audience.

"That’s been one of my mantras -- focus and simplicity. Simple can be harder than complex: You have to work hard to get your thinking clean to make it simple. But it’s worth it in the end because once you get there, you can move mountains."
- Steve Jobs

Madalyn Murray (later O'Hair), wrote a document used in the court case Murray v. Curlett, 1961. It reads, in part:

"An Atheist loves himself and his fellow man instead of a god. An Atheist knows that heaven is something for which we should work now - here on earth - for all men together to enjoy. An Atheist thinks that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue, and enjoy it. An Atheist thinks that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment. Therefore, he seeks to know himself and his fellow man rather than to know a god. An Atheist knows that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An Atheist knows that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man. He wants an ethical way of life. He knows that we cannot rely on a god nor channel action into prayer nor hope for an end to troubles in the hereafter. He knows that we are our brother's keeper and keepers of our lives; that we are responsible persons, that the job is here and the time is now."

How does an atheist define love and good and ethics? This whole document sounds as if every atheist has an agreed upon defintion of all 3. An atheist should not really care for any of those things other than for the simple reason that man has evolved in such a way that he has a desire to define all 3 and live up too what ever moral standard he has set for himself. Since Man has evolved out of randomness then so has morals and morlas will only exist as long as Man does which will probably not be that long relative to the age of the universe. Whether you are a Nazi or a monk does not change anything if when you die you are just 6 feet under. Nobody is going to Judge your actions here on earth so why does it matter what you do under such a world view? Murray speaks about all the good an Atheist wants done as if nobody else wants those things also and that every Atheist walking around is just dying to build hospitals and feed the hungry and every religious person is ignorant of doing any of these things. Pretty ubsurd statement with so many self contradictions A philosophy teacher could spend an entire year lecturing on them

i think the base assumption is that a mother loves her child, irrespective of whether she's Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Pagan, or atheist.

love was central to the survival of our species long before organized religion. and it will still be there if there comes a day when religion no longer plays a major role in our lives. i certainly did not feel the need to do whatever amoral thing i wanted when i lost my faith. on the contrary, i felt liberated to understand everybody much more than before.

and Murray's statement shouldn't be construed as some claim that an atheist nation will be an utopia. there will always be disputes, and to claim otherwise is disingenuous and/or naive.

how did the human race manage to not kill each other off before the organized religions we recognize today? and which deity in human history has the best morality in your opinion? and have you examined them all for this quality?

Nobody is going to Judge your actions here on earth so why does it matter what you do under such a world view?

Are you saying religious people only act a certain way because they will be judged?

a world of atheists is not the same as a world of psychopaths (How We Decide by Jonah Lehrer)

kindness and helping others is in our genetic code (The Human Spark | So Human, So Chimp - Youtube)