Aside from the fact that he has been noted for intentionally mistating relatively obvious well known facts, that his knowledge of history and his own party is limited and he acts like a distraught fan-boy at a New Direction concert. Aside from all that, his style, content, analysis, mannerisms and courtesy are below the minimum level for public discourse. He is of the all too popular ilk that demonizes their opponents rather than debating them, who revels in ad-homs and other fallacies while insisting that his opponents are terrible people, that no other reasonable interpretation of data is possible. It is because of people like him that we don't have public discourse any more.
But the level of consumption, rate of consumption and areas affected differ dramatically. Cigarettes are usually inhaled into the lungs which are extremely sensitive to carcinogens. Cigarettes also contain lower quality tobacco and a wide variety of other chemicals (tar for example). All of these factors are different in cigars or pipes.
Both of those are usually left in the mouth rather than lungs, a far more robust cell set with more active cleansing mechanisms to remove damaged cells and materials.
They also are usually far more pure in content. Just tobacco (or with pipes a casing of usually benign substances) rather than the chemicals common in cigarettes that are usually far more harmful than just tobacco (tar or formaldehyde).
Disease rates are also far, far lower. Lung cancer is statistically no different for cigar or pipe smokers than it is for the general population (think about the stuff you breath in walking downtown). Oral cancers are higher, but treatable, and are statistically insignificant for pipe smokers (cigar smokers do have a higher rate of lip and jaw cancer).
Life span is the best example, imo. Cigarettes have pretty conclusively been shown to lower your life span. Cigars smokers are statistically similar to the non-smoking population. Pipe smokers live on average 2 years longer than the general population (probably due to reduced stress effects, which could be a correlation not causation thing), but we can at least say they aren't deadly in that sense.
First let me point out that this survey only discusses the UK, where trends are very, very different than in the US.
Second, if you go to the Wiki article and click on its sources, it will take you to the article on the poll. A bit more digging will get you to the actual survey found on ICM's website, http://www.icmresearch.com/.
The survey respondents were asked about how much charitable giving they gave that was not included in buying from a charity store or that was part of a charitable event such as a Church food drive or call for donations.
This artificially skews the response towards those who are giving outside of a Church or Synagogue type organization where charity is often partnership and event based, rather than organization based as was found in the polling on zakat.
You are correct in reference to the sources Wiki is drawing from here. There are other sources that analyze tax returns (which are more reliable due to auditing) and other data sources and compare them to the surveys for validation. This technique was used in the Chronicle of Philanthropy's periodic review of giving. http://philanthropy.com/section/
You can define this even further down to religious groups by reviewing a Notre Dame study that finds Mormons on the high end and Catholics on the low end. http://phys.org/news/
I would add to this that what you smoke is relevant too. A cigarette is not a cigar is not a pipe is not a hookah. The effects, health concerns, public concerns, etc all differ dramatically based upon what we are talking about.
Christians give more "per-capita" than atheists, so the "there are more Christians objection fails."
Further, the organization objection fails too, since the study referenced also finds that Christians give more volunteer time and money even when not including church donations.
The question about Jews and Muslims is an apples and oranges fallacy. The numbers compared are per capita, but compare Christian secular giving to Muslim and Jewish total giving. When you compare these in the same manner, at least in relation to America, Christians are still the most giving group.
“First, I'm curious, why don't you have any points? It says on your profile that you've been a member for a while. Do you upvote and downvote a lot?”
I do, I’m still relatively new to the forum, is that not normally kosher? The point system is relatively unique here so I’m still trying to learn the ropes of how you guys use it.
“I didn't suggest that Elohim is always plural. It's the accompanying verbs, like you just stated, that make it plural... which it has.”
Well, I didn’t accuse you of saying that it is always plural. It is in fact a plural word, http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/
In Genesis however, and with Yahweh in particular a singular verb is used with a plural accompaniment, Elohim. This is pretty clear if you look at Strong’s Concordance of the Hebrew used in these verses. http://www.blueletterbible.org/
The verb is a singular form, אָמַר 'amar (said), but the noun is plural, אֱלֹהִים 'elohiym.
As for the concept of Elohim being used in reference to a singular being as a reference to God’s majesty, that is a concept embedded in the Hebrew itself. This is called a plural intensive word (sometimes called a pluralis excellentiae, more on that here, http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/
“Isaiah 14:12..Well, this is important because prior to the Bible, Venus was always referred to as the morning star. “
This interpretation relies on a relatively tortured reading of the text and some historical inaccuracies.
First, the context of the verse clearly indicates a metaphor. The prophet is referring to the fall of Babylon as being similar to satan’s fall from grace and in comparison a star’s fall from the sky. Flaming and dramatic.
Second, Venus was the Roman version of Aphrodite, not the bringer of light or of knowledge (that is Athena or Minerva to the Romans). Venus only begins to show up historically after the founding of the city of Rome (753BC) while we have relatively reliable copies of this verse in Isaiah all the way back to the 770s BC, earlier. And, Venus is a Grecco/Roman concept, not a Semetic one, that would require a leap between cultures that had not even encountered each other at this point to any significant degree. If you want to tie Lucifer into earlier religions you would need to find a Semitic one or possibly a Hittite version.
The rest of your response appears a bit confused in my mind. Lucifer is both Venus and Saturn? Those are two completely separate concepts within the Roman religion and other star-focused worship systems. Do you have a link perhaps to any support for the “cycle” theory you put forward?
“If you look at the World's main religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hindu, etc.) and many ancient polytheistic religions (Greek, Roman, Egyptian, etc.), they all have a similar story, which fits along this outline.”
Only is a pretty shallow sense. This would be like saying evolution and Christianity follow the same story line because they involve progressive change over generations. A more rigorous and in depth look at the comparisons shows them to be false.
This misunderstanding represents a translation issue between Hebrew and English. Elohim can be a singular or a plural word, its plurality in Hebrew from the accompanying verbs.
When it refers to single beings such as Moses and Baal in the OT they are both referred to with singular verbs and is in a singular form. When it refers to multiple beings such as the gods of egypt, it is accompanied by plural verbs and has a plural form. In the OT when it refers to God it is accompanied by singular verbs and takes a plural form.
In Gen 1, it is only accompanied by singular verbs such as bara, singular masculine of create. Traditionally, in Hebrew the use of Elohim in a plural form with singular verbs indicates a fullness of power and majesty unique to God himself.
Just as it is done in Arabic and other Semitic languages. And in English, where we traditionally capitalized God and Him to indicate a specific being.
This misunderstanding represents a translation issue between Hebrew and English. Elohim can be a singular or a plural word, its plurality in Hebrew from the accompanying verbs.
When it refers to single beings such as Moses and Baal in the OT they are both referred to with singular verbs and is in a singular form. When it refers to multiple beings such as the gods of egypt, it is accompanied by plural verbs and has a plural form. In the OT when it refers to God it is accompanied by singular verbs and takes a plural form.
In Gen 1, it is only accompanied by singular verbs such as bara, singular masculine of create. Traditionally, in Hebrew the use of Elohim in a plural form with singular verbs indicates a fullness of power and majesty unique to God himself.
Just as it is done in Arabic and other Semitic languages. And in English, where we traditionally capitalized God and Him to indicate a specific being.
Imparting our particular biases onto either a divinely inspired book (theists) or a book that has compiled the cultural wisdom of one of the oldest surviving groups (atheists) is a bad idea, it destroys the value that is imparted via the cultural refinement and wisdom of a culture that survived for 5000 years.
Should we rewrite the Odyssey? The Illiad? The Inferno? Kant? Should we discard all such classical wisdom for our own peculiarities?
As G.K. Chesterton said, "fallacies do not cease being fallacies because they become fashions."
I've heard this argument quite a bit lately. It seems to be somewhat neo-luddite, with all the same missed premises.
The supposed downside is that we have these amazing devices we've become dependent on for entertainment. The removal of which would mean what? A sense of boredom? That "downside" only exists because of the value created by those devices. Essentially, this argument is similar to saying "has oxygen really improved our lives?" I mean we move around desperately struggling to maintain our supply of it, that doesn't sound like a quality of life improvement.
This argument also fails because it only details the trivial amongst technological improvements. For every iPad there is a less invasive, more survivable surgical technique, a technology that allows people to contribute more value to the economy (and therefore get paid more), a technology that breaks down some barrier and allows opportunity to open up for some group that was barred from an area, or something that helps us connect with each other and the world around us.
Armstrong's could have been a fluke. You need a replication experiment to validate his experience ;-)
Then your point seems somewhat irrelevant. You made the statement that people deserve what they vote for. I pointed out that this isn't accurate because the results of those votes also impact those who voted against said position/policy. Hence, the only reasonable answer to this question is to agree. Democracy is not an objective.
Absolutely. From an evidential standpoint the Cosmological Argument, the Moral Argument, the Fine-Tuning argument all provide sufficient warrant for a belief in God.
So, in essence, you've conceded the point here to me. You agree that Democracy is not an objective in itself, but a flawed mechanism.
There are of course obvious better methods, such as a republic, where democratic institutions are constrained by legal rules. IE "slavery is wrong."
That is the point of this discussion. Do we want Democracy for its own sake? Or do we want it, perhaps, as a method towards a different goal?
That was my point in disputing your position. The people do not "deserve" whatever outcome democracy places on them.
Hmm, so if Democracy institutes slavery, that's fine with you then?
Really, getting back to the point, the only real objective for a society is to implement majority will? Is there any other objective that might detract from that one?
What about it being majority will makes it moral?
And do the minority also "deserve" that? If the majority votes to impose something upon the minority, what then?
Absolutely, I don't share the Democracy fetish, it is nothing more than a veiled appeal to popularity fallacy.
If the majority vote to enslave the minority, does that make it ok? Of course not, the majority concept clearly is not an end in itself.
The government is incapable of "giving" money to the poor. They don't make money, they take it from others to distribute to the poor. That introduces two moral problems into the equation.
1) The moral standing to confiscate the wealth of others is undefined. IE what moral standing does the government have to remove people's property in this context?
2) The practical benefit of giving people money is unwarranted. We give nearly a trillion dollars a year in direct aid to those in low income areas, there has been no noticeable change in poverty rates in thirty years. So this policy is clearly ineffective. Further, since the money taken in problem one would normally be used as capital for further development we cause two more problems, we decrease the number of jobs available to the poor and increase the cost of goods they are purchasing due to the capital decrease.
I'll first note the 100% absolute lack of any actual evidence supporting those claims.
Your argument itself is relatively meaningless. Who cares if two large atheists do give a lot of money (the claim about Pat Robertson is an urban legend and warrants no response)?
Christians in the US give both a higher percentage (on average) of their wealth than the non-religious and give a larger absolute amount than the non-religious (those two included).
So really the question is, which is better for the world? More people giving more or a couple of big names to throw on a debate site? I think we both know the answer to that.
Sources: http://philanthropy.com/section/
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/saguaro/
The fact that religion was a part of their cultures does not show that the conflicts and death counts were religiously motivated. You are confusing correlation with causation here. Politics were also part of the Medieval cultures that engaged in the crusades, could I then make the argument that the crusades were not religious wars, but secular political ones? Of course not. Because there are religious people in a culture does not mean that all actions taken by that culture are therefore of a religious nature.
I also have some problems with you historical points as well. The Jews, for example, were not killed because of their religion, but because of their race. Jews who had converted to Christianity were still sent to the death camps. There were race laws that prevented someone with Jewish ancestors from entering high office, regardless of how long his family had been Christian or secular. The Nazis were seeking racial purity, not religious purity (since they were also killing priests and outlawing religious education).
The Soviets (who killed far, far more than the Nazis), were explicitly atheist, so it is hard to argue that their motivations were religious. As such, your argument immediately falls apart.
It is true that the Japanese believed their Emperor was a god (though the sincerity of this belief varied greatly). But the Emperor was not the one pushing WWII. The military was. The military was made up of extremely secular Japanese who largely pushed the Emperor into the war. And they didn't do so because he was a deity, they did so because they needed access to large mineral deposits in China, rubber and oil in the south Pacific and territorial buffers from other large powers. None of those are religious reasons, they are secular, political concerns.
Definitely incredible, it is refreshing to see someone actually attempt something to stop a law that even the CBO estimates will kill 800,000 jobs and transfer another 1.5 to 2 million to part time work. Clearly the stand alone votes to defund aren't working so its time to take a greater step. Good for Cruz in pointing out that the Dems are being ridiculous to only allow one amendment vote to the bill.
As for a shutdown, who cares? 95% (not hyperbolic) of federal employees will still come to work during a shutdown. Virtually all federal employees have been deemed "essential" and are waived from this kind of action.
Obviously a fallacious argument. The hidden premise being (as everyone as pointed out) that God began to exist. I see no reason that an atemporal being would need to "begin" to exist.
Wait, what? "placed them in Palestine?" The Roman's didn't place the Jews in Palestine, they conquered an existing Jewish population there.
I'm a bit surprised by the votes here. All value judgements aside, this isn't even close.
Clearly WWI and WWI were non-religious wars, they were political wars. Rwanda was a non-religious conflict, it was a cultural one.
Given that we are already at 100 Million secular causalities. There just isn't a possible chance of religious wars coming even close to that.
Either party's existence is irrelevant to the question of philosophic similarity. 2 is closer to 5 than 10 is. I don't need to argue that either is physically real to make that claim.
I would argue they are closer in practice to Christ. Conservative Christians give more than secular people across the board, volunteer time, money even blood. This fact holds true even when removing the Church tithe (donation). This giving is personal and private and is much more in accordance with Christ's theology than Rand's Objectivism.
Christ held that we should seek to quietly give and do so with a cheerful heart. That is far closer to the personal charity in concept that to social programs which are coercive and usually relatively boastful (given the tone and rhetoric of those who argue for them).
Rand's Objectivism held that no charity was permissible at all. That human interaction should be guided solely by mutually beneficial exchange rather than by any charitable instinct. Rand herself often criticized Christians for their giving, arguing that it was immoral to subsidize inaction.
As such, agree with the positions or not, it is clear that Conservative Christians are far, far closer to Christ than Rand.
