News Nugget: A Computer Will Replace You Too | Best of Cain
For the 10,000th time, Cain should have been President.
You type: | You see: |
---|---|
*italics* | italics |
**bold** | bold |
While we're very happy to have you in the Gulch and appreciate your wanting to fully engage, some things in the Gulch (e.g. voting, links in comments) are a privilege, not a right. To get you up to speed as quickly as possible, we've provided two options for earning these privileges.
get Cain, I'm hoping for either Ben Carson
or Allan West. BOTH would be ever better:
one as president, the other as Vice=President.
Huzza!!
GOD's ears!!
David Axelrod was just as influential in using rumor and innuendo against Herman Cain as he was during senator Obama's election for the U.H. Senate against republican Jack Ryan, The Obama campaign managed to breach the sealed divorce records of Jack Ryan and then with cooperation of the liberal Chicago media made all the wife's accusations against Jack Ryan public. I don't know whether Jack Ryan was in fact guilty of any or all of the accusations against him, but few divorces tend to reveal the truth and nothing but the truth. The bottom line is that the during all of Obama's campaigns lies and rumors were used against all opponents in order to have a positive outcome for Obama during those elections.
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
If you want to find out more about the Ryan-Obama race at that point, just google Jack Ryan, Illinois and you can read numerous versions of what took place at the time, including the corrupt judge that released the sealed files.
Fred
It is much more efficient.
Yes, there were such rumors about Perot's daughters wedding, but there was no proof of such plans by anyone. It has been widely accepted that Perot's paranoia was the only basis for any such claims.
While I and many others certainly accept Perot's business acumen, not to mention his personal bravery and loyalty to his employees as evidenced by his persona travel and involvement in the rescue of some of his employees in Iran around the hostage crisis days, we must also remember that he made much of his money by tapping into the government Social Security contract business. I'm not saying that he didn't deliver services, only that he did not hesitate to use influence to retain those contracts.
I will admit though that Perot as president would have been an interesting but scary time.
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
The life of the universe is finite. Rather than allow intelligent life to disappear, a new universe has to be devised that will eventually put the components of intelligent life into play. That intelligent life will eventually create computers. Eventually the computers will overtake the life forms. The machines will be able to replicate and repair and exist long after the life forms disappear, so they will become the entities that start the new big bang.
This is actually being posited by respected scientists . Really.
I wonder how much these scientist would benfit from attending a church service and perhaps going so far as reading the Bible just so that they could consider some other alternatives to those long odds of accidental circumstances. Perhaps the concept of intelligent design is a possibility after all. Who knows perhaps the scientists concept of an open mind might reach that far. Do these people really have so little faith in human beings being able to adapt and that they were designed with adaption in mind?
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
Actually, I know that you're not. The idea that scientists who put forth the theories as illustrated above going to a church in order to compliment their theories does seem ludicrous. Observing a universe composed of billions of galaxies containing billions of stars, so vast that light traveling at 186,000 miles per second takes years to reach us being created by a god looking like one of us wearing flowing white robes and a flowing white beard is beyond the pale. Please don't get me wrong. I'm not a militant atheist. If religion gives you comfort and a moral compass, so long as it doesn't impede my forward progress, is OK with me. But to think that a trip to a local church will guide scientists in their pursuit of the truth is not something I, or most likely they, could get on board with. I am not denying, however, that there is a possible overall intelligence in the universe. I don't know, and I don't think that anyone else does either. If there is, It seems strange that it would be concerned with the well-being of each individual of the 7 billion people on earth, or perhaps in a few other places.
Why, why?
I'm sure that the above is quite lucid, and self explanatory.
If a being made the computers and the computers made our universe who made the being?
Basically all this theory did was reset the questions to times even more remote than what was already being argued.
Life, as we know it, may very well have been created by an intelligent being (or beings); I have nothing against that concept; I do have something against believing it simply because it was said and written down (eventually) by semi-prehistoric people. Should we just as well believe in their other beliefs?
If you accept that there can be a deity that created humankind with free will to choose how to live their lives, but that those choices have consequences, then you can find your own "truth." While a Catholic myself, it is my conclusion that the differences among all religions is one of human failing. Basically in being so arrogant as to try to understand God and his plan and trying to craft rules based on that human interpretation.
I believe that JC was a real person and a human manifestation of God. His teachings are simple and basically boil down to "love one another as you would love yourself," or perhaps a less squishy form being "do unto others as you would have done unto you." While that doesn't present the "why" argument that Objectivists seem to need to identify, it leads to the exact same set of principals and morality, thus I cannot see why so many of them are so anti-religious.
As for science - my conclusion is that God gave us a brain in order to use it. He also created the laws of nature, so discerning them is part of the glorification of God.
As I said, perhaps all religions are some slice through "truth." Kind of like having some convoluted 3D item. Each one slices through on a plane, exposing some different cross section of the same entity. None are the whole "truth" but all are some part of the "truth." Add to that a human "lens" that distorts the "truth" to varying degrees.
I consider myself and Objectivist and perhaps I can answer why Objectivists are not friends with religions. More precisely, not friends with churches - that is the institutions of religions. A great example of that was actually expressed by a rabbi (can't recall his name), when he was asked to explain the difference between spirituality and religion. Spirituality, he said, is when Pocahontas goes into the woods, sits by a stream and contemplates her surroundings, the earth, the water, the sky, the meaning of life… Religion is when her local synagogue asks for 10%.
Now, it is quite possible that an Intelligence created Life and, perhaps the Universe, or that part of it of which we are aware. Is highly unlikely that this Creation happened in six earth days, as described in the Genesis. More likely, a natural world, with its physical laws, came into existence. Thus, we are all subject to those laws, which may have been created by God. What I find curious is that people pray to the God in order to grant them their wishes (even if most noble), which would necessitate the breaking of those natural physical laws created by that same God. And only in order to satisfy the wish of that person. Amazing!
You might find this funny. Every Archdiocese does a yearly fundraiser. I mailed mine back with two pennies taped to the card so that they knew who it was from with a note to see if they could recoup my contribution from the various archbishops that I enclosed news clippings from - one in Atlanta who built himself a 6000 sqft house, and another one in PA who added on to an already 4000 sqft house to the tune of several hundred thousand dollars. They actually sent me a thank you for the donation (which cost more to mail than the 2 cents).
I like the structure of Catholicism it's how I was raised, but I have no illusions that the humans that make up the church are any more holy than I or have a more direct communication to God than do I.
Unless and until something comes along that shows how inert matter could spontaneously become living matter, and how humans developed a capacity to think, then I'll keep my belief that it happened as a consequence of an all powerful deity. It's as logical and rational as not. And from a practical perspective, I've never found the argument that we all must respect one another and that's why we shouldn't use force against one another as a logical, rational, nor practical philosophy, particularly since it isn't borne out by history. No, I prefer the theory that there is a vengeful God who will smite those who behave in ways against his will (love one another) as that seems a more credible mechanism to ensure good behavior.
Back to intelligent design - neither theory can possibly be proven with the tools and the knowlege that humans have at the moment. I am not advocating either one. However, devoting much resources to the belief in God and, especially, the Church, is a tremendous anchor on human progress and well being. You mention the palaces that the bishops have built for themselves; drive through the poorer areas in the South and be amazed at the no-expense-spared churches towering over the trailer parks. It doesn't take a genius to see that there's something wrong with this picture.
I believe in God. I also believe we have only a fraction of an idea of who He really is and what His objectives are. This is my major sticking point with blind obedience to any faith (and I don't like having to say thank you 10,000 times a week). (I also think using He, could be moot since a strictly spiritual being would have no sex as we know it).
The purpose of prayer is giving thanks for what you've been given already. The asking for things (though I don't think changing physics is something many pray for) is an act of reliance. Pray to get picked for a better job, that your kid comes out of surgery, that your son gets on base at a ball game, or that you meet your bills are probably far more common than asking for physics to be changed.
BTW - I downloaded your book and enjoying it.
Thanks for taking a chance on my book. I'm pleased to know you are enjoying it. Which one did you pick up?
If these things aren't random then someone or something is or was at work. That's rational.
Religions: no one can be sure who is right and who is wrong. But, history and 3 world religions tell us that Jesus did exist (but cannot confirm his resurrection). Jesus's teachings have done immeasurable good for the world and perhaps fostered a maturity in mankind unrivaled by other religions. Good reason to lean toward Christianity as truth.
Rationally the fact that we exist is enough to ask why and how, no?
I write sci-fi and there are dozens of ways that I can see life developing. Happenstance isn't one of them. In fact my new book (due in August or September 2014, hopefully) will touch on this issue most profoundly (and piss off everyone, including my wife).
Cain was an effective CEO for Godfather's Pizza back when it was my daughter's favorite restaurant. They had a pizza buffet in her hometown in South Carolina.
My only significant problem with Cain was his stint with the Federal Reserve.