EPTBible Required Curriculum - Page 22
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
ghermination
United States2851 Posts
| ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=97593¤tpage=15#289 In certain fields, the theory Aegraen proposes actually works: Forestry, for instance. In others, like the ones we're discussing, it does not. | ||
|
Louder
United States2276 Posts
On August 18 2009 15:05 NExUS1g wrote: This new law allowing a class about the Bible is an elective and not required for students to take. It doesn't matter how major a religion it is in the modern world, the Greek and Roman pantheon and its mythology are still religions. And when we study Greek/Roman mythology we read stories of Hercules, Zeus, Hera, Hades, etc. If we study the history of Christianity, we'll read stories about God, Jesus, Jacob, the prophets, etc. There's absolutely no difference other than the one caused by the stigma in peoples' heads. The only argument I hear to any of this is, "but... it's Christianity! That's different!" Doesn't work, sorry. You're just plain wrong, sorry. Unless they're going to label the course "Christian Mythology" or "Bible Mythology", it's completely different. Treating anything in the bible as historical fact is unacceptable. | ||
|
Louder
United States2276 Posts
On August 18 2009 23:14 Aegraen wrote: Nullification. Arm yourself and read up. It's just sad how far the paradigm has shifted from our founding. Hopefully we can reverse the trend before its too late. And holy shit is this Aegrean guy for real or is he some kind of really bored troll? I've never read so much nonsense in one place since I quit going to church in 6th grade. I certainly hope you're not trying to suggest that Christianity was a core component of "our founding", considering the number of educated and articulate Atheists involved in it. Humans really need to evolve beyond religion (superstition). Since the dawn of science religion has fought against it and been proven wrong time and time again - yet Americans are more suspicious of science than religion, think science is dogma and religion is not, think science IS a religion, think religion is open minded and science is not, and think the Bible is an accurate historical document but the fossil record and carbon dating are not. /wrists | ||
|
Louder
United States2276 Posts
On August 18 2009 23:59 L wrote: We've already gone down this Monopoly road, and the evidence posted was far more convincing that mr. niche market theory over here. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=97593¤tpage=15#289 In certain fields, the theory Aegraen proposes actually works: Forestry, for instance. In others, like the ones we're discussing, it does not. It amazes me how conservatives and advocates of complete market deregulation call liberal ideas "idealistic", when their own ideals are based on the assumption that the wealthy and powerful will always be good and fair and just - that they will pass on their wealth and everyone will prosper - despite countless evidence to the contrary. | ||
|
NExUS1g
United States254 Posts
On August 19 2009 00:04 Louder wrote: You're just plain wrong, sorry. Unless they're going to label the course "Christian Mythology" or "Bible Mythology", it's completely different. Treating anything in the bible as historical fact is unacceptable. They're teaching it for its historical, literary and cultural importance. Please read the law before trying to sound educated about it. | ||
|
NExUS1g
United States254 Posts
On August 19 2009 00:13 Louder wrote: And holy shit is this Aegrean guy for real or is he some kind of really bored troll? I've never read so much nonsense in one place since I quit going to church in 6th grade. I certainly hope you're not trying to suggest that Christianity was a core component of "our founding", considering the number of educated and articulate Atheists involved in it. Humans really need to evolve beyond religion (superstition). Since the dawn of science religion has fought against it and been proven wrong time and time again - yet Americans are more suspicious of science than religion, think science is dogma and religion is not, think science IS a religion, think religion is open minded and science is not, and think the Bible is an accurate historical document but the fossil record and carbon dating are not. /wrists I am agnostic. What does the president elect put his left hand on when swearing his oath? You lose. | ||
|
Aegraen
United States1225 Posts
On August 19 2009 00:13 Louder wrote: And holy shit is this Aegrean guy for real or is he some kind of really bored troll? I've never read so much nonsense in one place since I quit going to church in 6th grade. I certainly hope you're not trying to suggest that Christianity was a core component of "our founding", considering the number of educated and articulate Atheists involved in it. Humans really need to evolve beyond religion (superstition). Since the dawn of science religion has fought against it and been proven wrong time and time again - yet Americans are more suspicious of science than religion, think science is dogma and religion is not, think science IS a religion, think religion is open minded and science is not, and think the Bible is an accurate historical document but the fossil record and carbon dating are not. /wrists What? I'm arguing Constitutional basis, not what is "right and wrong". Do you know what Nullification is? PS You do know I'm agnostic and have argued that ideally neither secularist/atheist or religious views should be involved in the school place. The ultimate goal however, is to have free choice and a privatized educational system where the parents can elect to send their children wherever they please and that means educational institutions which most reflect their wants and needs. Which is a good thing. There have been many tests conducted with privatized educational systems and each have proven far better than the public alternative at relatively the same costs and some cheaper. | ||
|
NExUS1g
United States254 Posts
On August 19 2009 00:13 Louder wrote: And holy shit is this Aegrean guy for real or is he some kind of really bored troll? I've never read so much nonsense in one place since I quit going to church in 6th grade. I certainly hope you're not trying to suggest that Christianity was a core component of "our founding", considering the number of educated and articulate Atheists involved in it. Humans really need to evolve beyond religion (superstition). Since the dawn of science religion has fought against it and been proven wrong time and time again - yet Americans are more suspicious of science than religion, think science is dogma and religion is not, think science IS a religion, think religion is open minded and science is not, and think the Bible is an accurate historical document but the fossil record and carbon dating are not. /wrists I am agnostic. You assume we as humans know everything there is about the Universe to determine there is, in fact, no deity? The most anyone can claim is the lack of knowledge. Also, the Bible has not been proven wrong. Instead, actually, archaeological finds often support historical notes found in the Bible. I know, everyone eventually mentions the "7 days" thing, but the translation is a point of debate because of the wording used in the original texts and later contexts put to a "day". | ||
|
Sadist
United States7233 Posts
On August 19 2009 00:27 NExUS1g wrote: I am agnostic. You assume we as humans know everything there is about the Universe to determine there is, in fact, no deity? The most anyone can claim is the lack of knowledge. Also, the Bible has not been proven wrong. Instead, actually, archaeological finds often support historical notes found in the Bible. I know, everyone eventually mentions the "7 days" thing, but the translation is a point of debate because of the wording used in the original texts and later contexts put to a "day". Louder doesnt assume that. I think you start out at the assumption that there is a god and with that assumption dont see any evidence to the contrary. If there was no initial assumption about there being a god...WAY less people would believe because youd have to convince them that there WAS a god. Not that god didnt "exist". Being an agnostic is lame anyway. Hate to say it but youd have to be an agnostic about just about everything. | ||
|
NExUS1g
United States254 Posts
On August 19 2009 00:31 Sadist wrote: Louder doesnt assume that. I think you start out at the assumption that there is a god and with that assumption dont see any evidence to the contrary. If there was no initial assumption about there being a god...WAY less people would believe because youd have to convince them that there WAS a god. Not that god didnt "exist". Being an agnostic is lame anyway. Hate to say it but youd have to be an agnostic about just about everything. I am agnostic. I don't think you know what agnosticism is. It is professing the lack of knowledge. I am actually an agnostic atheist, since I do not belong to any religion, nor do I presume to know whether or not a deity exists. By stating, "There is no god," you immediately put yourself in a realm of fantasy more so than someone professing believe in a deity. The only difference is, we KNOW you don't know everything, while we don't and can't know there is absolutely no deity. | ||
|
Sadist
United States7233 Posts
On August 19 2009 00:34 NExUS1g wrote: I am an agnostic. I don't think you know what agnosticism is. It is professing the lack of knowledge. I am actually an agnostic atheist, since I do not belong to any religion, nor do I presume to know whether or not a deity exists. By stating, "There is no god," you immediately put yourself in a realm of fantasy more so than someone professing believe in a deity. The only difference is, we KNOW you don't know everything, while we don't and can't know there is absolutely no deity. and you cant know that there arent 40000000 Pizzas flying through the planet that are invisible and undetectable. btw they also play starcraft. | ||
|
NExUS1g
United States254 Posts
On August 19 2009 00:37 Sadist wrote: and you cant know that there arent 40000000 Pizzas flying through the planet that are invisible and undetectable. btw they also play starcraft. If they're undetectable, then no, we can't know. If you profess that you believe there are 40,000,000 undetectable flying pizzas that play StarCraft, more power to you buddy. | ||
|
eatmyshorts5
United States1530 Posts
I live in Texas Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck. | ||
|
NExUS1g
United States254 Posts
On August 19 2009 00:50 eatmyshorts5 wrote: Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck. I live in Texas Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck. It's an elective course, you know. | ||
NonY
8748 Posts
On August 19 2009 00:34 NExUS1g wrote: By stating, "There is no god," you immediately put yourself in a realm of fantasy more so than someone professing believe in a deity. The only difference is, we KNOW you don't know everything, while we don't and can't know there is absolutely no deity. Epistemology is not as clear as you imply. You shouldn't present your argument as if that's all there is. It's just the argument you've thrown your epistemological chips in with! There are other options. Indeed, the other options are why you'll find that some scholars very well read on both epistemology and religion will profess atheism rather than agnosticism. | ||
|
NExUS1g
United States254 Posts
On August 19 2009 00:55 Liquid`NonY wrote: Epistemology is not as clear as you imply. You shouldn't present your argument as if that's all there is. It's just the argument you've thrown your epistemological chips in with! There are other options. Indeed, the other options are why you'll find that some scholars very well read on both epistemology and religion will profess atheism rather than agnosticism. It is possible to be both agnostic and atheist which I am. I do not profess to know definitively of the existence or lack thereof of a deity, nor do I prescribe myself to the actual belief of any deity. I do not say deities do not exist, because I do not know everything about the Universe and thus cannot make such a determination on an educated basis (making me agnostic), but at the same time, in my personal beliefs, I do not believe in a deity (making me atheist). One is knowledge, the other is personal belief. Epistemology does cross lines because these are both philosophical (epistemology and theism); however, in this exact case, the definitions of the knowledge required to be either a strong or weak atheist and/or agnostic are made pointedly. | ||
|
EchOne
United States2906 Posts
On August 18 2009 23:31 Aegraen wrote: The only barrier to market entry (Without Government involvement) is start up costs. This isn't even much of a problem due to how investments work. How do you think every single company as ever started up? A Monopoly is not inherently a bad thing. Predatory pricing is cowed by the mainstream as bad, and hurts the people. This is false. Having goods and services cheaper allows more people to purchase which is a good thing. People then go on to say well, once all their competition is wiped out they'll simply raise prices and extort from people. Once they raise prices however, it allows competitors to come in undercut and make profit and have a successful business. I seriously want you to look and try to find any historical data that shows where a company comes in, destroys competition by predatory pricing and then jacks the price back up and actually survives in any longevity. If you can find even one example I'll cede my point. However, I am backed by such giants as Friedman, Mises, Hayek, Rothbard and the like and there have been no historical documents of this ever suceeding. I'm eager to hear your reply and which company succeeded in doing so. In addition to start up costs, advertising strength, resource control, intellectual property, economies of scale, customer loyalty, high sunk costs, R&D strength, the network effect, and other effects serve to deter entry into a monopolized market. Answering non-governmental barriers to entry with the supposition that entrepreneurs can somehow magic together mountains of venture capital is naive. Investors always consider risk since it is an incontrovertible resource in their livelihoods, and barriers to entry that are exacerbated by monopoly don't create favorable risk environments for them. You think small competitors can suddenly depose an incumbent via price undercutting? That and many other weapons are still options for a monopoly, and are more dangerous in stronger arms. I did not address Predatory pricing and you did not address deadweight loss. I have no contention with Predatory pricing's occasional benefits to consumers. I hope you don't oppose the assertion that monopolies are overall inefficient and anti-competitive. I refuse to find a counter-example tailored to your mold. To clarify: history is an uninformative case study since monopolies that have escaped with price gouging have been slain not by competition but by government intervention. I could speculate that such and such monopoly was historically unrivaled and would've lasted "any longevity" if not for government intervention (take Kwark's mention of AT&T) but that is hardly scholarly. A qualification of "longevity" is also vague. AT&T remained dominant for almost a century, but is that sufficient longevity for a counter claim? Obviously markets change and monopolies that once were natural monopolies may fall from such grace in the face of technological progress. The phenomenon does not indicate monopolies' self-destruction, rather their mortality in the flow of time. Monopolies may be no different than other competitors in this respect (no company lasts forever) but since we can't tell the future, monopolies' negative effects essentially persist indeterminably. Friedman himself acknowledged in Capitalism and Freedom that countering technical (natural) monopolies is an important government function. The men you cite certainly are giants of economics, but I'd recommend you forego lines that mention them for the sake of mentioning them, as they add no substance to your posts. "I adhere to the SKT1 School of TvZ, backed by giants such as Boxer, Canata, and Fantasy," does little to explain exactly why and where bunker rushes are used. EDIT: Apologies for necro'ing this derail. | ||
|
NonY
8748 Posts
By stating, "There is no god," you immediately put yourself in a realm of fantasy more so than someone professing believe in a deity. I don't read it as having an implied "According to us" (with 'us' being you and everyone taking your position). I read it as a bit condescending, like if only they knew the good reasons to doubt the veracity of their knowledge about god's non-existence, then they'd take your position. So I thought it would be appropriate to mention that there are good epistemological arguments for being a strong atheist. If you were simply describing your position, I apologize! | ||
|
NExUS1g
United States254 Posts
On August 19 2009 01:43 Liquid`NonY wrote: nexus1g: Yeah, I understand the different "levels" of belief/knowledge with regard to god. I just thought this particular statement was a bit strong: I don't read it as having an implied "According to us" (with 'us' being you and everyone taking your position). I read it as a bit condescending, like if only they knew the good reasons to doubt the veracity of their knowledge about god's non-existence, then they'd take your position. So I thought it would be appropriate to mention that there are good epistemological arguments for being a strong atheist. If you were simply describing your position, I apologize! Ah, my mistake. But, yes, I suppose it is condescending. I'd be interested to hear your side of the argument on that. From my personal PoV it seems if you definitively say X is fact due to lack of evidence, you are contradicting yourself. Can you really have a fact without evidence? | ||
| ||
