Something got me wonder: Why are there terrorists?!
If we go through history, we see they never achieved anything at all.
I guess you've been reading history books a bit quickly. Nelson Mandela has spent 27 years of his life in jail because of his conspiracy to overthrow the state. He was a terrorist. The American settlers who revolted against british rule in the 1770's were seen as terrorists before they created a new country called the US. The french resistants between 1940 and 1944 were labeled as terrorists by the German rulers. The people who created Taiwan were terrorists in China. Nasser was seen as a terrorist by the french and the british... And those are just a few examples which came to my mind, there are countless others. Yes, that's what the history books say. But who, really, are the terrorists? For example. When government forces you to pay taxes so that you can't even support your family, then isn't government the terrorist?  You say that the government, the terrorists? The police, the terrorists? Army terrorists? Drunk neighbor terrorist ?! You are wrong. Terrorists are people who impose their conditions, by any available means. Using their own purposes, even murder. The objectives of the terrorists are always illegal and immoral. The objectives of terrorists are not always illegal and immoral. Sometimes police actually have good in mind. But traffic stops are often at least partially illegal and immoral when there has been no harm or damage done, and when there is no threat. For example. You are driving 100MPH on an open highway. Your car is good, and can easily drive 100Mph safely. There is nobody out on the highway except you and the state highway cop. The cop stops you and gives you a ticket for going 100 in a 75 zone. That is terrorism by the cop. True, this is a broad example. But cops terrorize most of us just by being there. Although some of their terrorism is legal, some of it is also illegal, and most of it is unlawful. Watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Twn96nj0jfw&list=PLHrkQxgz0mg6kUBciD-HIvTXByqjcIZ-D&index=10. |
|
|
|
Something got me wonder: Why are there terrorists?!
If we go through history, we see they never achieved anything at all.
I guess you've been reading history books a bit quickly. Nelson Mandela has spent 27 years of his life in jail because of his conspiracy to overthrow the state. He was a terrorist. The American settlers who revolted against british rule in the 1770's were seen as terrorists before they created a new country called the US. The french resistants between 1940 and 1944 were labeled as terrorists by the German rulers. The people who created Taiwan were terrorists in China. Nasser was seen as a terrorist by the french and the british... And those are just a few examples which came to my mind, there are countless others. Yes, that's what the history books say. But who, really, are the terrorists? For example. When government forces you to pay taxes so that you can't even support your family, then isn't government the terrorist? |
|
|
|
Unless it can tell us where consciousness comes from, it's not enough to say it's an emergent phenomenon. Granted, but how? How does it work? Unless those questions are answered, we don't understand the human mind. We're kidding ourselves if we think otherwise. ... If you believe that you can build consciousness out of software, you believe that when you execute the right sort of program, a new node of consciousness gets created. But I can imagine executing any program without ever causing a new node of consciousness to leap into being. Here I am evaluating expressions, loops, and conditionals. I can see this kind of activity producing powerful unconscious intelligence, but I can't see it creating a new node of consciousness. I don't even see where that new node would be - floating in the air someplace, I guess. And of course, there's no logical difference between my executing the program and the computer's doing it. Notice that this is not true of the brain. I do not know what it's like to be a brain whose neurons are firing, because there is no separable, portable layer that I can slip into when we're dealing with the brain. The mind cannot be ported to any other platform or even to another instance of the same platform. I know what it's like to be an active computer in a certain abstract sense. I don't know what it's like to be an active brain, and I can't make those same statements about the brain's creating or not creating a new node of consciousness. Sometimes people describe spirituality - to move finally to the last topic - as a feeling of oneness with the universe or a universal flow through the mind, a particular mode of thought and style of thought. In principle, you could get a computer to do that. But people who strike me as spiritual describe spirituality as a physical need or want. My soul thirsteth for God, for the living God, as the Book of Psalm says. Can we build a robot with a physical need for a non-physical thing? Maybe, but don't count on it. And forget software. Is it desirable to build intelligent, conscious computers, finally? I think it's desirable to learn as much as we can about every part of the human being, but assembling a complete conscious artificial human is a different project. Source: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_artificialhumans15.htmWe are far from finding the connection between mind and spirit and soul. We barely understand the complexity of mind. We haven't really even figured out what spirit and soul are, yet. |
|
|
|
Make it a law written on iron and steel, and in stone, that the creators of AI are to be held guilty to the point of execution for everything that the AI does, and the AI won't do anything dangerous. Sure, but once we design an AI one step higher then us. The AI will have more intelligence from being one step higher to look at designing itself to be another step higher. <> We aren't smart enough to do this. We might awaken the devil, but we aren't smart enough to make AI more intelligent than we are. |
|
|
|
Let me say it simply. God always was. God always is. He has no beginning or end. Your question is really out of line. Why? Because you can't follow the cause and effect of even one electron, while God follows them all - and everything else - completely. So, until you can do this simple, little thing, answers to questions about the sublime nature of God won't be even a little understandable to you. Forget it. When I think upon the divine, I have to take myself in consideration. Why? Because I am the start and finish of myself, my own measuring stick if you want. So if God creates everything is must be by divine romance; it must be Goddess and God having divine sex and then the stars follows after that. This is the only way for me to make sense of these things. So Goddess is important in this equition because it is she that nutures star babies inside till the big bang shoot out in all direction moment. lots and lots of star babies. its wonderful! You quoted me, above, but forgot to read what I said. There is no "must be" regarding God, except if He tells us. Why? Because we don't know even a touch of what God is like without Him telling us. We are countless trillions of times closer to microbes in our abilities than we are to God. |
|
|
|
O.K. I'll add my 2 cents worth. Why haven't we banned automobiles? Or at the very least why haven't we changed the speed limit to 10 miles an hour so no one gets hurt in a crash? Way more people die on our nations highways and roads via automobile accidents then are killed by guns. So I would think we would want to address the bigger killer of people first before we worry about something that percentagewise kills far less people a year. Just my random thoughts on the subject. Guns are not the problem. People that use guns incorrectly are. And in my opinion you're never going to control that factor. Not completely. I say an armed society is a polite society and I'm all for everyone that wants to own a gun being able to own one. I realize there may be some people who probably shouldn't have a gun but I tend to get very concerned when you start making all these rules about who can and cannot have one.
Yes! And what about the medical? People go into a hospital for some minor thing, and die because they caught some disease spreading through the hospital. But the medical tries to cover it up. And then there's the hundreds of thousands who die every year from accidental mis-treatment or accidental mis-diagnosis. And anybody can see (if he puts his thinking cap on, steps back for a moment, and takes a look) that radiation and chemo kill cancer patients way more than the cancer does. And you can't listen to medical statistics about this stuff, because the medical lies to cover it up. Medical is way more dangerous than guns. Ban medical, and enforce it with guns. |
|
|
|
I am done being "nice" to Americans..
You elected Bush Jr. twice.. now ?
You have the balls to nominate Trump ?
<> Don't be so hard on Americans. Why not? Even you forgot about the fact that W's grandfather supported and was an ally of Hitler in WW2. So how are the poor, ignorant, American masses supposed to know things like this? Google "Bush Nazi." |
|
|
|
Like it or not people are killers. Been killing since the caveman times and will keep it up for a while longer.
Religion of any shape or form is not why we are killers since we were killers long before any religion was around.
We are also shitters pissers and eaters .
We can't stay alive without killing. Yeah that is correct whether we kill a plant or an animal to eat.
Or a white blood cell kills off a germ. All that is killing.
Religion or rules of behavior were designed to limit the killing so as not to destroy our selves with too much killing.
There are those who live in caves today. The religion of killing was around almost from the beginning - Cain killed his brother Abel. Nobody knows for a fact what things were like before the fall into sin. Possibly there was no death back then. People changed with the imperfection that came about through the fall into sin. For example. If our bodies were perfect before the fall, it is possible that everything that we ate would be perfectly used... perfectly absorbed into our bodily systems. There might have been no waste. If this were the case, we would have no need for poop chutes. Then, when Adam and Eve sinned, and things became imperfect, God might have instantly made the poop-chute-opening in them, to accommodate the waste that He knew was going to come about from imperfection. |
|
|
|
Ethical monotheism is probably the single greatest contributor to human progress from any source since human culture emerged from the stone ages. This force which emerged first in Judaism and and spread throughout the world via the mediums of Christianity and Islam continues to shape human destiny even in a time when much of the world foolishly rejects it as irrelevant. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/mono.htmlNature is amoral. Nature knows nothing of good and evil. In nature there is one rule—survival of the fittest. There is no right, only might. If a creature is weak, kill it. Only human beings could have moral rules such as, "If it is weak, protect it." Only human beings can feel themselves ethically obligated to strangers.
...
Nature allows you to act naturally, i.e., do only what you want you to do, without moral restraints; God does not. Nature lets you act naturally - and it is as natural to kill, rape, and enslave as it is to love.
...
One of the vital elements in the ethical monotheist revolution was its repudiation of nature as god. The evolution of civilization and morality have depended in large part on desanctifying nature.
...
Civilizations that equated gods with nature—a characteristic of all primitive societies—or that worshipped nature did not evolve.
...
Words cannot convey the magnitude of the change wrought by the Bible's introduction into the world of a God who rules the universe morally.
...
ethical monotheism suggests more than that God demands ethical behavior; it means that Gods primary demand is ethical behavior. It means that God cares about how we treat one another more than He cares about anything else.
Thus, ethical monotheism's message remains as. radical today as when it was first promulgated. The secular world has looked elsewhere for its values, while even many religious Jews, Christians, and Muslims believe that Gods primary demand is something other than ethics.
http://old.explorefaith.org/neighbors/beliefs/nature_j.htmlTo hold that God is the Source and Sustainer of moral values is to insist upon an objective status for ethical ideals. They are not the impulsive fabrication of human minds, but are grounded in the very bedrock of creation. Moral laws have objective validity similar to the laws of physics. They are not our invention, but it is for us to discover them. Just as it would be foolish to defy the law of gravity and hope to escape its consequences, so is it perilous to presume that a human infant can grow to emotional maturity without ever being loved or cared for. In both cases the penalty for ignoring the law is a natural consequence of defying the given realities of the universe. The uniqueness of God in this context is the complex but delicate blend of both physical and spiritual reality in a single deity which accounts for the balance, harmony and order of nature within us and without.
Ethical monotheism is not just a way of talking about God. It is a way of understanding human experience; it is a way of organizing the world in which we live. It is a faith that attempts to explain what we do not know by beginning with what we do know. We do know our awareness of this world is rooted in a unity of our own senses. We do know that defiance of moral law invites a disaster as devastating as any contempt for the laws of physics or chemistry or biology. We know, in short, that we cannot fathom it all and that this world is ultimately grounded in mystery. And that singular ethical mystery is what we call God This shows you how far the Jews have come away from God. Ethical this and ethical that is a secondary thing in the Bible. What is the primary thing in the Bible? It is God's love for mankind. God's love for mankind is expressed in the fact that God sent His Son, Jesus, to be the Savior of all people who will accept Him. "Savior" means Savior from death to eternal life through the resurrection. The next important thing in the Bible is that mankind is to love God above all things, and then love himself and his fellow people equally. Ethical behavior is to flow out of the love. The various instructions in the Bible as to what makes up ethical behavior, are simply information that people are ignorant about at times. For example, the ethical behavior in the Ten Commandments is something that should be understood through love. But the written Ten makes it way more easily understood. In addition, some of the ethically behavioral writings in the Bible only fit certain circumstances. For example. The command, "Thou shalt not kill," is part of the way that we express love towards all people. But if someone is attacking your family to destroy them, not protecting your family is essentially killing them. If protecting your family includes killing the attacker, love for family stands greater than love for the attacker. |
|
|
|
11-year-old Trump supporter schools CNN host... CNN likely had an 11-year-old Donald Trump supporter on this morning to get him to turn on his candidate.
Instead, he provided some perspective many adults don't have.
Matthew Schricker appeared on the news channel on Friday and was asked about the impact Trump's language has on him.
"A lot has been made in this campaign of the language that is used, the name-calling that's been used, especially in the primary," the host said.
"As an 11-year-old watching it, what's your reaction?"
"I really think that listening to a few bad words coming out of Donald Trump is a lot better than people getting blown up by terrorists, people getting burned alive, people's heads being chopped off and people getting drowned," Schricker responded. Read more at http://theamericanmirror.com/11-year-old-defends-trump-cnn-bad-words-better-getting-blown-terrorists/.
|
|
|
|
Actually, it is the rest of the world who are the biggest plague. Why? They think that the USA is the biggest plague, but they go on letting the USA exist. They are stupid enough to do nothing about plagues. |
|
|
|
Do you think Putin will rule Russia for life?
Is there anyone, whom do you consider a viable replacement at this point?
Are there really options for someone new to take over after Putin's presidency will end?
Personally, I think he will. He has no legal obstacles not to go for next elections, he's probably the only candidate to win.
I think that's up to the people of Russia to decide in a direct voting (unlike in the US  ). So far he manages to balance the interests of 190-something nationalities that is Russia. Currently, he can go for another 6-year term... We'll know in 2018. Or maybe in 2017 if he decides to hold early elections to not give US prepare some nastiness for 2018 elections... I don't see any viable alternatives on the horizon at the moment. Shoygu may be one - but he's best where he is now, commanding the armed forces. Lavrov is becoming old... Knowing Putin, he may be grooming some candidates, teaching them how to deal with the politics, letting them work in the field so to speak, and it may be any of the politicians or diplomats, that are currently in the open view. Direct voting doesn't do any presidential selecting in the U.S. In America, there are delegates that vote according to their district. They are known as the Electoral College. They are the ones who select the president. The delegates of the Electoral College vote according to the vote of the people of their district. But because of the different sizes of the districts, and the different populations of the districts, often the final Electoral College vote doesn't reflect the same thing as the popular vote of the people. However, the delegates of the Electoral College must vote according to the wishes of the people of their districts. If they don't, they might face prison for disrupting the wishes of the people. It is a complicated system in some ways. |
|
|
|
I somewhat disagree with the assumption that polytheism doesn't have a dark underbelly as well...
While being indoctrinated into Christianity as a child, I was taught that Rome was very unfriendly to Christians before the conversion ~330AD... the Romans were polytheistic and would supposedly murder Christians on the street, or make them fight gladiators, etc...
The Vikings were polytheistic (Norse)... enough said?
I can't say I have any particular examples of Hindu's murdering other religions, but that could be an exception, not the rule...
I normally say that all theistic religions are evil... this has little to do with their god or gods that they believe in, and more to do with the actions of their followers, which are typically inspired by "holy texts"
Part of the problem lies with "holy texts" which people deem infallible throughout history... both the Christian and Muslim texts say rather awful things, which were common at the time they were written (slavery, homophobia, religious intolerance, etc), but are not allowed today... the texts have failed to keep pace with the changing times
The changing times are changing because they fail to keep pace with reality. |
|
|
|
You (OP) got it backward. People are separating themselves. They do it when some of them believe in the One God, while others believe in multiple gods, while still others attempt to force themselves to believe God doesn't exist.
The universe operates too harmoniously to have more than One God. In reality, atheism is polytheism. Why? Because every atheist is attempting to set himself up as god by trying to believe that no God exists, in the face of scientific proof and the evidence of nature that God DOES exist.
I just want to say once again, as I wrote in the subject, I'm not an atheist. Thanks for this tidbit of information. |
|
|
|
Why do Atheists hate Religion ? they dont need to hate religion if they hate religions they think to war with others and no one need to think same Atheists people or no one need to belive one Religion because of every people have to respect beliefs of others.
Who told you that atheists hate religion ?! Religion, a person who does not recognize God. Atheist, recognizes only the exact sciences. And it is the right of atheists, believe or not believe in God. There is no need to blame atheists, atheists and so bad. Atheists, after death, emptiness. Atheists don't hate religion. Their faith in atheism IS a religion. The exact sciences state that God exists. Cause and effect is one of the basic exact sciences. Universal entropy is one of the exact sciences. Complex universe is so extremely common that no scientist has to make a scientific law about it, because it is easily and universally understood by all people. A universe that has these three exact sciences in it must be an universe that was made by an almighty God. There is no other way. Atheists are deluding themselves with the fictional dream that atheism is real. and just how did this almighty god come to be? please enlighten me cue another typical nonsensical word salad in 3...2... Let me say it simply. God always was. God always is. He has no beginning or end. Your question is really out of line. Why? Because you can't follow the cause and effect of even one electron, while God follows them all - and everything else - completely. So, until you can do this simple, little thing, answers to questions about the sublime nature of God won't be even a little understandable to you. Forget it. |
|
|
|
The question about what was in the heart of Marx and others is a difficult one. Perhaps Marx meant it for the good of the people. There are those who truly mean it for the good of the people, and don't understand that a free market is the thing that works best. Constitutionalism is not free market. In fact, the only thing that makes free market is when people stand up against all political views, as men and women, and don't let the politicians steal anything from them... like in taxes. |
|
|
|
We're all going to have problems in life at times, one way or another. Most of us don't like the problems. So, we need to set our minds with this knowledge, and live emotionally as though our problems don't exist. Regarding terrorists, don't hate them. But remove them. Change them if possible. Put them in prison so they are out of the way. Or execute them. Don't get emotional about it. Hate doesn't help anything. It drags the one who hates down. Simply get rid of the terrorists without the hate... like you would fix any little problem in life. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
