Dániel Boros

Would The Greatest Show On Earth by Richard Dawkins be good? I have looked high and low but my questions have never been answered. Also I may be not satisfied with any kind of answer like: photosynthesis evolved because grass is green and such... Can you name any aspect of the evidence that is there for evolution but is not their for artificial advancement? Like cars or computers? If it is absolutely convincing why am I not convinced? The evidence for evolution is primarily evidence against design if such evidence is uncommon to be found in designed objects. So you admit your bias Maybe makes sense to you... Give me an example.. I am tired of the books...

For the most part a genetically modified life form carries the same genes and ERV-s as its original. Does that prove that it had evolved? You claimed that If two species has the same genes and ERV-s than that would prove that evolution works. So if I had a life form and a genetically modified version of that life form that would prove that evolution happened even though it didn't. My question is this: is the existence of ERV-s sufficient to prove evolution? If yes, why? If not what would be sufficient? The theory of Evolution was established before ERVs and before the human and chimp genomes were sequenced. What was the basis for evolution before that? Plain ignorance? What part of what you said cannot be explained by a common designer and why?

They never do... How did he prove that the process of evolution occurs? Please name a few. They can be just as much explained by a common designer as they can via common descent. Anthony Flew gave a much better argument for atheism than Dawkins did. Do you really need to know who designed the Stonehange and why to realize it was designed? Is it possible that there exists some universal attribute that all designed objects carry that can be detected by humans? Is it logical to say that some objects are more likely to be the product of design as they are the product of nature? If we found such an attribute would it be logical to believe that any object with such an attribute was probably designed unless evidence to the contrary is provided? I am an ID debater and I am willing to go in detail into my faith: I have none.

Please do point me to an industry. I would argue that any industry that doesn't use a universal standard would not benefit from a universal standard. Markets work with or without government. The framework of the market is not based on law only the details are. The market is based on people, trust and profits. And that is a bad thing? Governments aren't business organizations after all. They don't have a strong incentive to make just and fair laws or laws that benefit the people. After all they are a monopoly are they not? Yes that is why people would benefit from a universal legal system and that is also why the legal system itself doesn't need to be provided by force. That is not entirely accurate. They can't use force to drive out competition and they can't force their product on people. The way crony capitalism works is by giving monopoly to producers and not by directly forcing people. The former is effective.. the later not so much. Even in a anarcho capitalist society one group could not force a competitor out of business by force at least it would not be very profitable and rational. In our society the only thing one can do against the mafia is call the cops. In other words use one group the one you prefer the one you choose against the other. Indeed criminals by definition don't abide by the rules. Those things are quite normal and basic in the business World. When I said I contradicted myself it was about Amway being a religion or not. First I said it was than I said it was not because Amway was not really teaching morality even though it used the methods of a religion. I don't know what I said about the constitution but it should be very obvious that I am for the constitution and for the rule of law. I merely suggest that everything we call government can be provided without using coercion and force on innocent people.

Is there an explanation how the first light sensitive organ came to being? How it was connected to the cells central unit and could respond accordingly to the amount of light that was cast on the cell? How did the cell know what to do when light was cast upon it? Did the connection (think of the cable between the computer and keyboard) between the central unit (that can instruct the cell to do an action) and the light sensitive organ exist before the light sensitive organ or after it? If it existed after the light sensitive organ what advantages did the organ give to the cell that was selected by natural selection? If it existed before what advantages did the connection give to the cell and how come the new light sensitive organ could connect to it once it evolved? Did it have a PS/2 port or an USB port? Would you say the same if we had half as many fossils as we have today? How much is enough to crush ignorant creationists? I have several versions of the Operating System called Windows. They all share some characteristics and code with each other. The closer they are in the record the more similar they look. The older they are the more complex and better they become. Would showing a few copies of Windows enough to crush ignorant creationists? Why do reptiles that can't fly develop feathers that are only better compared to scales in terms of aerodynamics? They are light, flexible strong but only useful for things that can fly. Yes feathers can be used to keep body heat the same way a skyscraper can be used to cast a shade on something, but that doesn't explain the favorable properties these objects have. Why did natural selection choose to make feathers the way it did? What advantage has a reptile with feathers have that cannot fly over other reptiles? Why didn't other reptiles develop feathers as well or things that are similar to them? Eyes and ears can develop independently multiple times but feathers cannot? When can one say with a high level a certainty that a scientific theory has been proven? Can evolution be proven? Was evolution proven? What would account as being undeniable proof of evolution? Has there been ever any scientific criteria that evolution didn't fail at?

As I said before that's an obvious straw man. Nobody is enforcing competing browser manufacturers to use the W3C standards and yet they all abide by it. Why? Because they have a rational self interest to use the same standard as everyone else uses. Why is that different from how the government would work in a free market? Why is one possible and the other not? Do not people have a rational self interest in a just and fair law? If you can prove that isn't true I will accept that anarcho capitalism is wrong and that society would degrade into a group of cave people. Otherwise you must prove that even though people have a rational self interest to have a government a free society cannot provide it because a government-less market lacks the kind of environment necessary to provide such a thing. So even though the environment is good enough to create a government through force it isn't possible to create a government through voluntary compliance.

That's why you need to chant it.

Then it assumes that in a anarcho capitalist society there would be no objective justice system to sort things out. That's like assuming there would be no railways or roads if the government didn't monopolize them. I gave a factual case of how it works this in real free market situation. Its there its real it works. If that is not more than the others offered..well too bad. I read the topic and I am not satisfied at all. I see the same assumptions over and over again leading to the same never happened cases again and again. Because than someone would read my post.

I disagree. I presented an argument that I have not yet seen here. I have read the document you've linked and the others as well. This is a Straw Man... The writer assumes that even though there are multiple groups that use force it also assumes there are multiple laws for each group. If the groups used different laws the local police would not be obliged to move. With this logic free markets would not work either. Imagine a shopkeeper that doesn't want to use money to trade how could an economy survive if such a thing was allowed. That is why trade must be regulated by the government...

yeah well I was hoping it would not be merged It took me a while to get all these things together.... Please can I have my topic back? Please

*** Mod's note: merged with existing topic. - sN *** It is a well known fact that Ayn Rand was strongly advocating against anarchism, anarcho capitalism and libertarianism I however find her arguments for government lacking. I do not claim that she was wrong, but I do claim that she didn't justifie her claims properly. http://aynrandlexico...government.html That's very nice and dandy, but what makes this monopoly legal? Democracy? You can chose to vote or not to vote, but in the end you are forced to abide by the law regardless whether that law is right or not regardless whether you agree with the law or not and regardless whether you have done anything wrong or not. You have no choice in choosing your government or not choosing any at all. The government is forced upon the individual violating his rights even if the person had not done anything wrong to deserve such action (violating one's rights can only be righteous as punishment for criminal activity). What makes the kind of government we have today legal is not the consent of the governed but force. Remember that: So government by definition has to defend man's rights but it's very existence violates their rights. That is the harsh truth of reality. The question is: Can the government force its own (non competitive) service on people because government is the only entity capable and with the legality to use force? Just because the government has a legal right to use force doesn't mean it can force whatever it wants on innocent people and that probably includes forcing itself on others as well. After all force is only right against someone who has violated a human right, but what did the child who has just been born commit against any law? Rand's argument rests on the premise ( assumption ) that the free market cannot provide a government i.e. a monopoly on force that is meant to protect individual rights. What makes the services of the government different from any other service the marketplace has to offer? Why is force unique in this regard? Rand does not explain why the free market through voluntary compliance cannot create such an entity. Wouldn't that and that alone could give legality to the government? Governments legality today rely on tradition and force and not on the consent of the people... it relies on the two things that cannot be justified by Objectivism. Can the free market provide a monopoly on force? Most people fear that if the legal use of force is given to the markets it would create chaos and violence, but is that really true? Isn't society compromised of individuals with rational self interest who can realize the benefits of a government? Is the problem that free markets can't create monopolies without government help? That is true, but not exactly. There have been many monopolies and are in existence today created by the free market! One example would be: W3C (World Wide Web Consortium) that has a monopoly on regulating web standards like html and css. A different group ECMA International regulates javascript. How can it be that these non profit organizations became monopolies? Because there are multiple browsers any one browser manufacturer who does not follow the regulations will loose a considerable market share because webpages will work in other browsers but not in theirs. Not even Microsoft's Internet Explorer that had a monopoly for a short while after the death of Netscape could have survived if they didn't start to follow regulations after the rise of Firefox and other free browsers. So the regulations aren't enforced by the law but by the market! Who pays the W3C and ECMA? Everyone who has an interest in the development of the Internet: Microsoft, Apple, mobile phone companies, HP, IBM etc... These often competing companies realized that it is in their benefit to standardize the web and give better services to the users. In this setup everyone the user, the browser vendors the regulators participate by their own free will and as a result they have created a monopoly without using force. If the free market could provide this system can it not provide a government as well? The regulations of W3C are like the laws of the government. They are rules based on rationality and the needs of the people! Everyone could participate in lawmaking for a price, but everyone who had one vote regardless of participating or not. This is where parties could be formed to maximize efficiency. The browser vendors and Internet Service Providers are like the police force and judicial systems of the government. If they did not follow the law they would loose customers and the other police companies would take them out if they used force on the individuals who had a contract with a different company. So it is quite possible for the free market compromised of individuals armed with rational self interest to create a voluntary government. Maybe we do not need a monopoly on force, but rather a monopoly on the law by which the force should be used and that is quite possible to achieve in a free market system. So how can objectivists argue for a government that's legality comes from force? If the free market cannot provide the people with a government than objectivists must tell the people why it is impossible even though it can provide everything else. Peace!

The axioms of objectivism rest on the argument that the opposite of the axioms are impossible. One has to use reason to deduce that these axioms are true therefore even an objectivist has some degree of faith in reason.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_d33-Lk5Zbw

sure but not here I mean the idea of atheism 2.0 is probably not related to the Catholic church. Amway is not a religion because it's about business and not about morality. Yeah I know I contradict myself ...

I do not reject faith I just don't define faith as narrowly as most people do. I for example have faith in science and I am not ashamed of it. I believe in black holes even though I myself cannot prove their existence. I believe in Super Novas, Neutron Stars, Pulsars and so on. I believe Mars has two moons even though I have never really counted them my self. Almost everything I know I take on faith. A religious institution in my opinion is an organization that teaches morality -the way of life- through practical means and is meant to spread like any good business. A good example of a modern religion would be: Amway. It has weekly sermons, traditions, programs, seminars, groups, books, education etc...

He's using a straw man... I am talking about a cat not a duck... He is assuming that the content of the religion would be the same even if the content was created by objectivists and he drops the idea based on that non existent content. Religion was defined there without any reference to the supernatural... Spirituality doesn't necessarily mean supernatural... and even if it did that was not the main point.

A church is by definition a place to worship the "supernatural". Who's definition ?

You are concentrating on the Christian Catholic Church too much. I don't think you can derive generalizations from one church. No I did not argue for that. All I said that not all churches have to necessarily take specific roles in society just because there was one or a few churches that took that role in the past. I argued that just because that there was a church that messed up doesn't mean that all churches by definition are messed up. Same with government. More governments messed up than didn't and yet objectivists still claim that there's a proper role for government that makes it necessary. Religion is medium by which ideas are spread to the people. A set of rules and traditions that are meant to keep the idea alive and consistent. That doesn't however exclude the people spreading the message from doing anything anywhere. Why should the members of a church be saints without any kind of faults or self interest? Religions today don't have the kind of power they did in the past. Try promoting another crusade and you will understand what I mean... Our phobia over religion is not justified....

I hope he is willing to define what "free will" is at least before he proves it does not exist.

The catholic church is one of many churches and the fact that it has gone ballistic over time doesn't prove anything. Governments have that tendency as well and that doesn't prove that their very existence is evil. As far as I can remember no one had ever started a religion based on reason or based on the worship of reason. Well maybe Pythagoras, but that's debatable...

How about faith in reason? The only way you can prove that faith in reason is irrational is by reason therefore reason is the only thing worthy of worship and have faith in. There is no sunday objectivist school and the works of objectivism are not easy literature. Teaching someone the philosophy of objectivism is much harder than teaching someone the morality of objectivism. All you have to do is make some insightful stories of the philosophy (like the Bible or Plato's Socratic dialogs) and teach people that. Why do we require everyone to take so much effort to reach such simple conclusions? Isn't that what the intellectuals are for?

Why should that exclude anything? That is an appeal to tradition. Just because there are plenty of bad religions out there doesn't mean there can't be a good religion. I don't agree that priests were meant to be either intellectuals or bureaucrats. The church functioned and functions mostly independent from state, science and even philosophy. Normal churches did neither of those things. They only spread the gospels.

So someone wants to make an Islamic bank in Hungary and we automatically qualify as a nation with Sharia even though the bank doesn't even exist yet. Sweet. Hope the US won't bomb us. Don't see any reason why they won't though. Btw. the US has https://www.lariba.com/ No wonder they are starting to use drones in the US as well.

I remember that Muslims controlled one third of my country for 150 years. Despite that there's no Sharia in Hungary today. I also remember that Christians did their own 'Jihads' a few hundred years before the pirates came. We still have Christians, but do we have crusades as well? I know I know you're working on it... Look, if Christianity could change so can Islam, but if we feed radicalism with hate every chance we can mess with Muslims it won't happen. I'm not saying that doing nothing will help -I think there's plenty of things we could be doing-, what I am saying that what you're proposing did not help in the past and will not help in the future. If this problem will be solved it won't be with the force of arms.