Author Topic: Weird fourm coversations - has the community gone soft?  (Read 59796 times)

Paul der Krake

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3604
  • Age: 9
  • Location: WA
Re: Weird fourm coversations - has the community gone soft?
« Reply #150 on: August 22, 2017, 01:20:26 PM »
Virtually any poll of any country within the last 200 years?

Old people heavily skew to the right.

Dabnasty

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 293
  • Age: 28
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: Weird fourm coversations - has the community gone soft?
« Reply #151 on: August 22, 2017, 01:21:36 PM »
Typically people are more likely to vote republican as they get older anyway, not sure how much that played into it.

Another source:
http://college.usatoday.com/2016/11/09/how-we-voted-by-age-education-race-and-sexual-orientation/

I'm most disappointed by the skewedness of white voters towards Trump. Then again, I look at the numbers for other races and wonder, how did any non-whites vote for Trump. And then I think, how did anyone vote for Trump?

Pointless line of thought I guess. They did and I may never truly understand.

A Definite Beta Guy

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 487
Re: Weird fourm coversations - has the community gone soft?
« Reply #152 on: August 22, 2017, 01:32:54 PM »
Virtually any poll of any country within the last 200 years?

Old people heavily skew to the right.

That's a recent change. Seniors used to lean (D).
http://www.gallup.com/poll/168083/seniors-realigned-republican-party.aspx

GenXbiker

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 330
Re: Weird fourm coversations - has the community gone soft?
« Reply #153 on: August 22, 2017, 01:37:03 PM »

I'm most disappointed by the skewedness of white voters towards Trump. Then again, I look at the numbers for other races and wonder, how did any non-whites vote for Trump. And then I think, how did anyone vote for Trump?

Pointless line of thought I guess. They did and I may never truly understand.

Just think about who he was running against.  It might have been a different story if it was that fool Biden.

SoundFuture

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 58
Re: Weird fourm coversations - has the community gone soft?
« Reply #154 on: August 22, 2017, 01:55:19 PM »
Virtually any poll of any country within the last 200 years?

Old people heavily skew to the right.

That's a recent change. Seniors used to lean (D).
http://www.gallup.com/poll/168083/seniors-realigned-republican-party.aspx


I appreciate what you're trying to do but I would urge caution when trying to equate our two parties as definite right and left.  They are really very narrow windows in a broad spectrum that moves quite a bit over time, especially in the last twenty-five years. Remember when George W. Bush went after an anti-terrorism bill that Clinton had signed because it discriminated against Muslims? Remember when Hillary Clinton said that marriage was between a man and a woman?

Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore.

NoraLenderbee

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1040
Re: Weird fourm coversations - has the community gone soft?
« Reply #155 on: August 22, 2017, 01:55:43 PM »
At the risk of pissing off ~1/3 of this forum, I'm going to say that the Baby Boomers are the biggest complainers of any generation. 

<complaint>
<complaint>
<complaint>

Mm-hmmm.

Dicey

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6289
  • Age: 59
  • Location: NorCal
Re: Weird fourm coversations - has the community gone soft?
« Reply #156 on: August 22, 2017, 01:59:41 PM »
Just stumbled onto this thread today.

As one who is coming upon two years in the MMM community, what I have noticed and I think was summed up well by RetiredAt63 is a shift as we get older.  I'm one of the old people here (though not terrible at 47) sitting on the long tail.  It seems to me that the vast, vast majority of regular contributors are in their 20s and 30s.  But I am just entering the phase of life that I'd prefer not to, but that is giving me a hearty middle finger and telling me very clearly "too bad sucker, you're here" and that is what makes it hard to fit the MMM mold.  I used to have no problem doing all my yard work, going to the home improvement store, buying 120 bags of mulch and doing it all in one day over my whole yard.  Now I've spent the better part of two months getting 80 bags of top soil into my backyard because all I have energy for is 20 bags at a time and that takes me two hours and then my knees hurt and I have learned if I don't stop I'll be unable to do the next batch next weekend, but will instead need to wait a month before my back or knees, of muscles can deal with it.  It sucks.  I also have this new problem of getting effected or just having poison ivy new in my yard.  So now I'm fighting with the prospect of can I even work in my yard at all without having a three week rash that is irritating as all get out.  So now I contemplate is it worth the cost to pay someone to come trim my tree, because all I did for two hours last Sunday was trim a tree and then I break out in a freakin' rash even though I swear nothing was around.  Tried to deal with it at home but after a week the rash looked so bad my wife said I looked like a leper and I finally gave in and went to urgent care to get the stupid steroids I had to do last time when it was terrible.  I'd love tell my body to not do these things, but even with a strong MMM desire, there are just some things we cannot overcome.  So I think this ends up being a bit of the softening that seems to be the point of this thread.  I think as more people join the community that are older, more kids and those challenges we definitely bring the "we do the best we can to maximize but there are limits" that Ra63 pointed out.
This is the reason to save like mad and get to FIRE when you're young. It's so much easier when your body will do whatever you wish. As we get older, it's damn nice to have enough money that to DIY or not to DIY isn't a budget-breaking dilemma.


Oh, and who was the demographic who voted most heavily for DJT?  not milllennials or GenXrs, but boomers.

ah, let the hateful responses come raining down!
Mine is not a hateful response, just a polite request for supporting data. Source, please?

http://www.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls

HaHaHa...Perhaps I should have specified "hard data". Election polls are projections, not data.

Exit Polls
Exit polls are surveys of a small percentage of voters taken after they leave their voting place. Pollsters use this data to project how all voters or segments of voters side on a particular race or ballot measure.


Virtually any exit poll conducted in my home state would have given the election to Clinton easily. 

HeeHeeHee, exit polls are not data.




I did it! I have a journal!
A Lot Like This
And hell yes, I am still moving confidently in the direction of my dreams...

Paul der Krake

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3604
  • Age: 9
  • Location: WA
Re: Weird fourm coversations - has the community gone soft?
« Reply #157 on: August 22, 2017, 02:14:27 PM »
Exit polls are as close to hard data as it gets. They're so good that elections are called using them well before ballots are counted.

Short of making everyone's vote public, there's no way to get more accurate results.

Dabnasty

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 293
  • Age: 28
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: Weird fourm coversations - has the community gone soft?
« Reply #158 on: August 22, 2017, 02:27:53 PM »
At the risk of pissing off ~1/3 of this forum, I'm going to say that the Baby Boomers are the biggest complainers of any generation. 

<complaint>
<complaint>
<complaint>

Mm-hmmm.
What you're referring to as <complaint>s are the reasons behind the opinion and I think they're mostly solid. I don't read the comment as whining for not having those advantages.

Besides, any generalized difference between a generation is a product of the time, not the people. If the next generation is more unhappy and isolated due to smartphones and social media it's not because of anything they did wrong, they were just born into a different environment where smartphones existed. Our personalities as individuals may be a combination of genetics and environment but if you're comparing generations, the only difference is environment. Genetics should average out.

Don't take it personally, especially if it doesn't apply to you. And if you were making a joke sorry for over analyzing.

Dicey

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6289
  • Age: 59
  • Location: NorCal
Re: Weird fourm coversations - has the community gone soft?
« Reply #159 on: August 22, 2017, 02:28:42 PM »
Exit polls are as close to hard data as it gets. They're so good that elections are called using them well before ballots are counted.

Short of making everyone's vote public, there's no way to get more accurate results.
So, Hillary Clinton won the election, then? She's the president of California? I'm so confused!!!

PdK, I love your contributions on this forum (especially on the funny stuff thread), but if your first sentence is true, we're all totally screwed.  Oh, wait a minute, maybe that's already happened.
I did it! I have a journal!
A Lot Like This
And hell yes, I am still moving confidently in the direction of my dreams...

Paul der Krake

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3604
  • Age: 9
  • Location: WA
Re: Weird fourm coversations - has the community gone soft?
« Reply #160 on: August 22, 2017, 02:39:40 PM »
Exit polls are as close to hard data as it gets. They're so good that elections are called using them well before ballots are counted.

Short of making everyone's vote public, there's no way to get more accurate results.
So, Hillary Clinton won the election, then? She's the president of California? I'm so confused!!!

PdK, I love your contributions on this forum (especially on the funny stuff thread), but if your first sentence is true, we're all totally screwed.  Oh, wait a minute, maybe that's already happened.
I don't follow. Exit polls indicated that Clinton would win California, and she did win California. Some states' exit polls incorrectly predicted their respective winners, mind you.

Exit polls are the closest thing to getting demographic data on voters, because unlike opinion polls who sample people who may or may not go vote, they sample actual voters who just cast their ballot. They're not official election results, but they're the closest thing to data that still allows you to collect demographic data.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9365
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Weird fourm coversations - has the community gone soft?
« Reply #161 on: August 22, 2017, 02:44:26 PM »
Exit polls are as close to hard data as it gets. They're so good that elections are called using them well before ballots are counted.

Short of making everyone's vote public, there's no way to get more accurate results.
So, Hillary Clinton won the election, then?

Yes, she did win the most votes.  No, she didn't win the election.

Dicey

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6289
  • Age: 59
  • Location: NorCal
Re: Weird fourm coversations - has the community gone soft?
« Reply #162 on: August 22, 2017, 02:55:13 PM »
What's missing is context. Higher counts do not necessarily equal higher percentages.

When I was a sales rep, someone said to me, "We get more claims for your product than anything else we sell." Hmmm, "What do you sell the most?" I asked. "Oh, yours is the best selling line we carry, by far." "So, as a percentage of total sales, where would you say we rank?" says Dicey. "Oh" says complaining person. After which, I get no more complaints about the number of claims.

Asking for data is kind of a polite way of calling BS. If they can prove it, great, but otherwise, they're likely just spewing unproven nonsense, which seems to be on its way to becoming our new national pastime.
I did it! I have a journal!
A Lot Like This
And hell yes, I am still moving confidently in the direction of my dreams...

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3988
Re: Weird fourm coversations - has the community gone soft?
« Reply #163 on: August 22, 2017, 03:04:29 PM »
Also btw, while I am being a grouchy older lady, Americans (largest single group on this forum) complain like mad about health insurance costs, but the rest of their COL is so low compared to many other places (Canada, the UK and Australia come to mind) that if they are making a decent salary they should have the money for premiums.  And of course we pay for our health care, the premiums are part of our taxes.  We look at things like  house prices, food costs, electricity, etc., convert it into our currency, and gasp at how low they are!
A while back, someone from Canada asked what taxes were for someone in U.S. making $100K/yr. to see how much more he was paying for taxes in Canada.  As it turned out, he was paying much LESS in taxes.

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/what-i-learned-about-myself-politics-and-those-on-the-other-side/msg1630240/#msg1630240

It looks like the property tax rate is lower in Canada than here as well.

Total taxes while I was in Germany were about the same as in California (state + fed).*

Didn't mind paying DE taxes because: clean parks, functioning transit, well maintained roads, low crime, great schools, strong social safety net. A paragon of good governance.

I despise paying US/California taxes. Not because I want to "starve the beast," but because it's so damn wasteful and we get so little value. Roads (and other infrastructure) go unmaintained such that they become much more expensive to repair. Our schools are terrible (we could have an entire discussion about bloated administration, unreasonably high costs to build, low funding, or other potential causes). Crime is high, becoming a problem to run errands by bike because thieves cut locks (and carry bolt cutters) in broad daylight. Now our small county wants to spend $200M+ to build a rail line that, by their own estimates, will only be used by about 2000 people/day (less than 1% of the population) and run huge annual deficits (abysmally low farebox recovery rate of 9-22%) while our road network already has a backlog of over $150M in deferred maintenance and long stretches are almost unrideable by bike.

* Likely due to high income at the time. Now with lower income I probably pay less in California, which may partially explain the difference in services. DE has a broader tax base whereas California relies heavily on high earners because Californians love taxes...but only if the tax is on someone else.

For whatever curious reason I was looking this up last week and found something that compared the US to Germany as it relates to total tax revenue as a percent of GNP.  I was surprised to see that income taxes (combined personal and corporate) weren't all that different in aggregate, property taxes were surprisingly low.  The big difference was from things like sales taxes or VAT where in Germany it accounts for almost half of the total tax revenue. This is why things cost more in Germany and I suspect other countries as well. 

So if the US were to implement a VAT (or national sales tax) similar to other countries the cost of goods would go way up ($800 blender may become a $1000 blender) but it could generate the revenue to pay for health care instead of just focusing on income.  But this would never happen as it would be viewed as highly regressive...

This is a debate for another thread, but the US has/spends plenty of money for health care already. We don't need more...we need to be more efficient with how we currently spend.

Your interpretation is that the US spends too much, another could be that the others don't spend enough. But I agree with you that efficiencies could reduce overall costs with impacting care.  I think of things like MRI and CAT scans - so many facilities have these very very expensive machines that also require very very expense staffing and they most likely aren't being fully or optimally utilized. Would it be more efficient to have one MRI machine per x # of people or per x square miles at a single center - I don't know.

It has nothing to do with "my" interpretation. 

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/press-releases/2015/oct/us-spends-more-on-health-care-than-other-nations

Quote
The U.S. spent more per person on health care than 12 other high-income nations in 2013, while seeing the lowest life expectancy and some of the worst health outcomes among this group, according to a Commonwealth Fund report out today. The analysis shows that in the U.S., which spent an average of $9,086 per person annually, life expectancy was 78.8 years. Switzerland, the second-highest-spending country, spent $6,325 per person and had a life expectancy of 82.9 years. Mortality rates for cancer were among the lowest in the U.S., but rates of chronic conditions, obesity, and infant mortality were higher than those abroad.

“Time and again, we see evidence that the amount of money we spend on health care in this country is not gaining us comparable health benefits,” said Commonwealth Fund President David Blumenthal, M.D. “We have to look at the root causes of this disconnect and invest our health care dollars in ways that will allow us to live longer while enjoying better health and greater productivity.”

We don't get better results for the absurd amount of money we spend.  Claiming that other countries don't spend enough, while so many of them have better results than us is...well, odd.

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6904
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Weird fourm coversations - has the community gone soft?
« Reply #164 on: August 22, 2017, 08:10:08 PM »
To follow the off tangent re total health care spending versus results - I have read that because our provinces run our health care systems, the costs are controlled (buying in bulk) and the paperwork is minimized.  Also people tend to seek health care earlier when they have issues, so the issues don't escalate until they are urgent.  These are all generalities, of course.  I do know that when I went for my MRI (paid for with my taxes), the machine was being booked virtually 24/7.

RE older people getting more conservative - when I was young and agnostic (well, to the religious person I was talking about evolution with I probably seemed like an atheist) I was told that when I got old I would be more religious - I suppose because I would be closer to death and worrying about heaven and hell?  Well I'm a lot older and closer to being dead, and I still think (not feel, think) evolution is a strong validated theory right up there with plate tectonics, and I am not any more religious than I was then.  So I am sure there are lots of assumptions floating around about what people of a particular age should think - but they are not necessarily valid assumptions.  If anything I am more agnostic and more left-leaning than I used to be, and I have lots of company.  Age is only one factor among many that determines peoples' viewpoints.


The measure of civilization is how people treat one another.

http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/meetups-and-social-events/ontario's-own-camp-mustache-2017/ - MEET US THERE!

gerardc

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 420
  • Age: 33
  • Location: SF bay area
Re: Weird fourm coversations - has the community gone soft?
« Reply #165 on: August 22, 2017, 10:21:09 PM »
HaHaHa...Perhaps I should have specified "hard data". Election polls are projections, not data.

HeeHeeHee, exit polls are not data.

Are you serious? Exit polls are data by definition. Not agreeing with a specific interpretation of the data doesn't make it "not data".

FINate

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Weird fourm coversations - has the community gone soft?
« Reply #166 on: August 22, 2017, 10:23:00 PM »
RE older people getting more conservative - when I was young and agnostic (well, to the religious person I was talking about evolution with I probably seemed like an atheist) I was told that when I got old I would be more religious - I suppose because I would be closer to death and worrying about heaven and hell?  Well I'm a lot older and closer to being dead, and I still think (not feel, think) evolution is a strong validated theory right up there with plate tectonics, and I am not any more religious than I was then.  So I am sure there are lots of assumptions floating around about what people of a particular age should think - but they are not necessarily valid assumptions.  If anything I am more agnostic and more left-leaning than I used to be, and I have lots of company.  Age is only one factor among many that determines peoples' viewpoints.

Evolution and religion aren't mutually exclusive. Many Christians are Theistic Evolutionists and believe the creation account in Genesis is primarily concerned with "why" rather than "how." That is, it's really about purpose and meaning rather than a text book. It was written to be understood by the audience at the time, and they had a very different understanding of time, chronology, and the physical world in general. I'm happen to be a theistic evolutionist, and C.S. Lewis was probably one, but we often don't make their beliefs known because it's no fun being attacked on two fronts
 - certain Creationists who are convinced that you're a heretic and certain Atheists who insist that any belief in a God is weak minded and irrational. That, and it doesn't make for very good click-bait to state that the whole religion vs. science debate is a false dichotomy.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9365
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Weird fourm coversations - has the community gone soft?
« Reply #167 on: August 23, 2017, 05:51:31 AM »
By it's very definition having any faith religion is irrational - it's the belief in something without proof.

caracarn

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 816
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Ohio
Re: Weird fourm coversations - has the community gone soft?
« Reply #168 on: August 23, 2017, 06:14:31 AM »
Just stumbled onto this thread today.

As one who is coming upon two years in the MMM community, what I have noticed and I think was summed up well by RetiredAt63 is a shift as we get older.  I'm one of the old people here (though not terrible at 47) sitting on the long tail.  It seems to me that the vast, vast majority of regular contributors are in their 20s and 30s.  But I am just entering the phase of life that I'd prefer not to, but that is giving me a hearty middle finger and telling me very clearly "too bad sucker, you're here" and that is what makes it hard to fit the MMM mold.  I used to have no problem doing all my yard work, going to the home improvement store, buying 120 bags of mulch and doing it all in one day over my whole yard.  Now I've spent the better part of two months getting 80 bags of top soil into my backyard because all I have energy for is 20 bags at a time and that takes me two hours and then my knees hurt and I have learned if I don't stop I'll be unable to do the next batch next weekend, but will instead need to wait a month before my back or knees, of muscles can deal with it.  It sucks.  I also have this new problem of getting effected or just having poison ivy new in my yard.  So now I'm fighting with the prospect of can I even work in my yard at all without having a three week rash that is irritating as all get out.  So now I contemplate is it worth the cost to pay someone to come trim my tree, because all I did for two hours last Sunday was trim a tree and then I break out in a freakin' rash even though I swear nothing was around.  Tried to deal with it at home but after a week the rash looked so bad my wife said I looked like a leper and I finally gave in and went to urgent care to get the stupid steroids I had to do last time when it was terrible.  I'd love tell my body to not do these things, but even with a strong MMM desire, there are just some things we cannot overcome.  So I think this ends up being a bit of the softening that seems to be the point of this thread.  I think as more people join the community that are older, more kids and those challenges we definitely bring the "we do the best we can to maximize but there are limits" that Ra63 pointed out.
This is the reason to save like mad and get to FIRE when you're young. It's so much easier when your body will do whatever you wish. As we get older, it's damn nice to have enough money that to DIY or not to DIY isn't a budget-breaking dilemma.


Yes, but since I've yet to find someone who can teach me how to build or can sell me a time machine, I believe it's one of the most valid reasons for the perception that the community has gone soft.   It's not totally helpful to indicate it's great to save early, when for those of us who are older, that time has passed.  What am I supposed to do with that suggestion in my effort to "harden up" the community?

Us oldsters can't bike as far, walk as far, lift as much.  As you indicated, we're past the point when our bodies will do whatever we wish (although as a kid I always wanted to fly, and no matter how much I wished, I never found a way to make it do that).  So now we spend, and get face punched because we're spending, which created the "soft" perception.  I think perhaps adding that understanding into Mustachianism (and this may be part of what we are seeing with MMM as well) might help to alleviate some of the feeling that the hardcore pushing has gone away.  I think as we age, it naturally has to back off.  Either that or one of the marks of a Mustachian will be early death from heart attack after over exerting ourselves to save $20. 

caracarn

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 816
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Ohio
Re: Weird fourm coversations - has the community gone soft?
« Reply #169 on: August 23, 2017, 06:17:09 AM »
By it's very definition having any faith religion is irrational - it's the belief in something without proof.
Oh boy.  Didn't we already have this debate through nearly 1,000 posts on another thread?

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6904
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Weird fourm coversations - has the community gone soft?
« Reply #170 on: August 23, 2017, 06:29:26 AM »
You guys, stop the religion/evolution stuff NOW!!!  I was talking about a conversation with ONE PERSON who took the Genesis story literally, who therefore could not accept evolution as a scientific theory because it conflicted with his specific religious beliefs.  The point was not religion, it was that "you will change your religious beliefs when you get older"  Connecting to an earlier assumption that you will change your political beliefs as you get older.  So the theme was attitudes about age (and aging).

Geesh, herding cats is easy compared to posting on the forums.
The measure of civilization is how people treat one another.

http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/meetups-and-social-events/ontario's-own-camp-mustache-2017/ - MEET US THERE!

tooqk4u22

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2043
Re: Weird fourm coversations - has the community gone soft?
« Reply #171 on: August 23, 2017, 07:22:39 AM »

It has nothing to do with "my" interpretation. 

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/press-releases/2015/oct/us-spends-more-on-health-care-than-other-nations

Quote
The U.S. spent more per person on health care than 12 other high-income nations in 2013, while seeing the lowest life expectancy and some of the worst health outcomes among this group, according to a Commonwealth Fund report out today. The analysis shows that in the U.S., which spent an average of $9,086 per person annually, life expectancy was 78.8 years. Switzerland, the second-highest-spending country, spent $6,325 per person and had a life expectancy of 82.9 years. Mortality rates for cancer were among the lowest in the U.S., but rates of chronic conditions, obesity, and infant mortality were higher than those abroad.

“Time and again, we see evidence that the amount of money we spend on health care in this country is not gaining us comparable health benefits,” said Commonwealth Fund President David Blumenthal, M.D. “We have to look at the root causes of this disconnect and invest our health care dollars in ways that will allow us to live longer while enjoying better health and greater productivity.”

We don't get better results for the absurd amount of money we spend.  Claiming that other countries don't spend enough, while so many of them have better results than us is...well, odd.

First, the Commonwealth Fund is fairly biased, agenda driven non-profit, and they only lean the information they want it to, but it also doesn't mean everything is wrong either.

Second, is it causation, correlation regarding health care spending - Maybe we spend a lot more on end of life care, infant care - those seem to be the most expensive situations when money is no object.  Or maybe we also spend a lot on self-induced issues that are ultimately unrelated to health care but the outcome is health care dependent such as....

A lot of the emphasis for these conclusions is on life expectancy, but that is not necessarily health care driven only.  Unfortunately in the US we have violent crime (many gun related) that far exceed other nations and significantly reduces life expectancy. The US also has significantly worse health standards (diet, exercise, etc) than other nations that lead to what these reports would consider preventable/treatable diseases - this falls more under health education and self-discipline than health care.  Automobiles are a another significant factor in national life expectancy and costs.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2011/11/23/the-myth-of-americans-poor-life-expectancy/#5d36ba222b98

Yes, the US spends a lot more on health care than other countries but there are reasons for it both good and bad.  Efficiencies can certainly occur, streamlining health care could certainly occur, getting healthier as a nation could certainly occur, preventative medicine and checkups with health education could certainly occur......

The one thing to note is that there is always this notion that the poor are the ones that suffer without health care but they are the ones who have access to nationalized health care via medicare and Medicaid.  Its the working poor to lower middle class that really have the issues because they don't make enough to afford it and make to much to get covered - ACA helped with some of this but not all.

FINate

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Weird fourm coversations - has the community gone soft?
« Reply #172 on: August 23, 2017, 07:39:22 AM »
By it's very definition having any faith religion is irrational - it's the belief in something without proof.

I cannot prove that God exists, nor can you prove that he doesn't. This is true of all things metaphysical. We cannot observe that which is beyond our physical universe or is otherwise unobservable be it a multiverse, a top-down cosmology, or a computer simulation. At some level we are all irrational because we exist yet there is no purely rational provable explanation. Greek philosophers relied on the unmoved or prime mover, for some today it's the big bang, for others a creator being. As the saying goes, it's turtles all the way down.

Jouer

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 218
Re: Weird fourm coversations - has the community gone soft?
« Reply #173 on: August 23, 2017, 08:12:45 AM »
GACK.  That link reference had someone in Canada maxing out RRSP's at $22k per year, so paying net tax on $78k, versus someone only contributing $6k to 401k on $110k.  Of course someone with 78K per year pays a lot less tax in dollars than someone earning $104k per year!!   grrr.     One pays 21 % taxes, at a lower income, and the other pays 28% taxes for a higher income.  There are many other factors that we can't see in this equation as well.

Property tax is a different situation, by city and state, (ex., NJ appears to be horrendous for taxes, overall, really) for both countries. 

The guy in the thread asked for the income taxes for someone in the U.S. with a $100K income, so I gave him the real results of someone with $110K with deductions making it about $103K of taxable income, so that was within 3% of what he was asking for.

We're second highest next to N.J.
I don't have a problem with your reply, it was actually quite generous to provide details as you did.   Just with the original poster who did not state very clearly that maxing out retirements brought his income down to around $78k,  and with the first $11k tax free, well, it was not really a full $100k taxable income..that op was asking a comparison for.

I was that poster. I assumed as mustachians that we'd be maxing out tax saving vehicles. And I did mention the reduced taxable income as clarification in a subsequent post.

Are you saying that those deductions do not exist in the States? Or that the maximums for tax savings vehicles are lower? Honest question b/c I do not know the answer.

As for the higher sales tax - that doesn't affect us as much as "regulars" since we don't by very much shit, right?

(sorry for being off-topic)

Dabnasty

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 293
  • Age: 28
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: Weird fourm coversations - has the community gone soft?
« Reply #174 on: August 23, 2017, 08:39:27 AM »
What's missing is context. Higher counts do not necessarily equal higher percentages.

When I was a sales rep, someone said to me, "We get more claims for your product than anything else we sell." Hmmm, "What do you sell the most?" I asked. "Oh, yours is the best selling line we carry, by far." "So, as a percentage of total sales, where would you say we rank?" says Dicey. "Oh" says complaining person. After which, I get no more complaints about the number of claims.

Asking for data is kind of a polite way of calling BS. If they can prove it, great, but otherwise, they're likely just spewing unproven nonsense, which seems to be on its way to becoming our new national pastime.
This is true, but it has nothing to do with exit polls. Exit polls are a percentage.

And even if you don't trust people to be honest in the polls, we're really just comparing age groups so in relative terms the claim that more boomers voted Trump could still be made.

FINate

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Weird fourm coversations - has the community gone soft?
« Reply #175 on: August 23, 2017, 08:41:02 AM »
You guys, stop the religion/evolution stuff NOW!!!  I was talking about a conversation with ONE PERSON who took the Genesis story literally, who therefore could not accept evolution as a scientific theory because it conflicted with his specific religious beliefs.  The point was not religion, it was that "you will change your religious beliefs when you get older"  Connecting to an earlier assumption that you will change your political beliefs as you get older.  So the theme was attitudes about age (and aging).

Geesh, herding cats is easy compared to posting on the forums.

Sorry, not trying to derail the thread...I just got stuck on what looked like another example of someone saying religion and evolution are incompatible.

FWIW, as I've aged my faith has deepened, but a big part of the deepening involved deconstructing my beliefs and stripping away the superfluous such that I'm considered a fairly "liberal" believer. On the other hand, I know lots of people who abandoned their faith altogether as they aged.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5574
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Weird fourm coversations - has the community gone soft?
« Reply #176 on: August 23, 2017, 08:43:38 AM »
I cannot prove that God exists, nor can you prove that he doesn't. This is true of all things metaphysical.

I think that's a cop out answer and I suspect that you do too.  We also can't prove that God isn't a transexual turtle in a Big Bird costume, but that doesn't mean it is equally likely to be true as false.

We cannot observe that which is beyond our physical universe

We already have a name for things that do not exist in our physical universe.  Imaginary.  By definition, they don't exist.

I've never understood the argument that separates everything into "things that exist" and "things that don't exist" and then claims they are both equally real.  If something doesn't exist in our physical universe then it has no place in our understanding of the universe.  It cannot affect us, it has no interactions or impacts or manifestations or reality.  They call it "supernatural" to highlight that it is beyond the natural (aka real) world.

If anything, I would like to believe that people get LESS religious as they older and wiser.  Children abandon their beliefs about supernatural creatures and magic and Santa as they develop rational thought patterns.  We learn how to think better as we age.  Why do religion and investing seem to buck this trend?

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6904
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Weird fourm coversations - has the community gone soft?
« Reply #177 on: August 23, 2017, 08:55:42 AM »
Sigh.  I tried to stop the derail re religion.

Can we get back to discussing the need to increase the rate of metaphorical face punches?
The measure of civilization is how people treat one another.

http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/meetups-and-social-events/ontario's-own-camp-mustache-2017/ - MEET US THERE!

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5574
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Weird fourm coversations - has the community gone soft?
« Reply #178 on: August 23, 2017, 09:07:38 AM »
Sigh.  I tried to stop the derail re religion.

Yes you did.  Did you forget that none of us have any control over where the forum threads go?

tooqk4u22

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2043
Re: Weird fourm coversations - has the community gone soft?
« Reply #179 on: August 23, 2017, 09:14:19 AM »
I cannot prove that God exists, nor can you prove that he doesn't. This is true of all things metaphysical.

And possibly the physical?

We cannot observe that which is beyond our physical universe

And we can't even fully observe all that is within our physical universe let alone beyond it!

We already have a name for things that do not exist in our physical universe.  Imaginary.  By definition, they don't exist.

I've never understood the argument that separates everything into "things that exist" and "things that don't exist" and then claims they are both equally real.  If something doesn't exist in our physical universe then it has no place in our understanding of the universe.  It cannot affect us, it has no interactions or impacts or manifestations or reality.  They call it "supernatural" to highlight that it is beyond the natural (aka real) world.

So a question, do you think any form of life exists in the universe beyond that of earth?  I don't know. They don't exist as far as I can tell. But with all the stars and planets out there that are so distant I would seem logical that there is a high probability that life of some kind exists out there (hell we can't even determine yet if there is life in our own solar system beyond earth.  But I can't prove it, so is it imaginary and therefore absolutely doesn't exist.  If so, why bother trying to find out, and if that's the case then we should cease all forms of discovery and exploration.

Things are referred to supernatural and metaphysical and that's because they don't fit, can't be proved out, or whatever. Personally I don't believe in ghosts, vampires, higher powers, etc but I understand why people might.....but I also am not going to go as far as saying with certainty that these things don't exist....as was said we haven't proven they do or don't exist.

Also its actually been proven that having faith in a higher power does affect us in a very positive way (wish I believed and could turn of the logical rational thoughts) so that qualification alone would make it real, would it not? 

If anything, I would like to believe that people get LESS religious as they older and wiser.  Children abandon their beliefs about supernatural creatures and magic and Santa as they develop rational thought patterns.  We learn how to think better as we age.  Why do religion and investing seem to buck this trend?

Or is it because we become programmed to think a certain way and that clouds out the "irrational, creative" thinking?  The less rational way of thinking is what leads to discoveries and inventions (or at least the concepts and ideas of them).....although it takes the rational thinking to typically make it whatever it is possible.

Think of all things throughout history that would have been deemed crazy and all it took was some nut job to go after it, and in some cases be persecuted for it.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2017, 09:17:18 AM by tooqk4u22 »

wenchsenior

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1253
Re: Weird fourm coversations - has the community gone soft?
« Reply #180 on: August 23, 2017, 09:25:22 AM »
My understanding of voting patterns is that they are more heavily influenced by your voting identification during your first few votes than your changing age.   In other words, you pick a tribe when you first become politically active, and then you tend to stick with that tribe, no matter what your age.  (Can't remember where I saw these data, will have to hunt).  But I suspect many people don't actually become politically active until after college or even later, which might mean their original identification with a party might be slightly more conservative than if they were college freshman or whatever.  I wonder if THAT has been studied?

FINate

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Weird fourm coversations - has the community gone soft?
« Reply #181 on: August 23, 2017, 09:33:04 AM »
I cannot prove that God exists, nor can you prove that he doesn't. This is true of all things metaphysical.

I think that's a cop out answer and I suspect that you do too.  We also can't prove that God isn't a transexual turtle in a Big Bird costume, but that doesn't mean it is equally likely to be true as false.

We cannot observe that which is beyond our physical universe

We already have a name for things that do not exist in our physical universe.  Imaginary.  By definition, they don't exist.

I've never understood the argument that separates everything into "things that exist" and "things that don't exist" and then claims they are both equally real.  If something doesn't exist in our physical universe then it has no place in our understanding of the universe.  It cannot affect us, it has no interactions or impacts or manifestations or reality.  They call it "supernatural" to highlight that it is beyond the natural (aka real) world.

If anything, I would like to believe that people get LESS religious as they older and wiser.  Children abandon their beliefs about supernatural creatures and magic and Santa as they develop rational thought patterns.  We learn how to think better as we age.  Why do religion and investing seem to buck this trend?

Not a cop out, just stating the obvious that some things are not provable. If you believe God is a transexual turtle in a Big Bird costume then that's up to you, it's a matter of faith, and I'm not going to ridicule your faith. Same for someone who believes the universe is a middle schooler's science fair project. Belief that nothing beyond the natural world exists (philosophical naturalism) is itself a matter of faith, and again I'm not going to deride anyone's unprovable beliefs.

Dabnasty

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 293
  • Age: 28
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: Weird fourm coversations - has the community gone soft?
« Reply #182 on: August 23, 2017, 10:01:47 AM »
Also its actually been proven that having faith in a higher power does affect us in a very positive way (wish I believed and could turn of the logical rational thoughts) so that qualification alone would make it real, would it not? 
I don't think this can be proven to be causation and not correlation. Certainly there is something different about a person who truly believes and one who doesn't whether it be the way their brain is wired or the community they were raised in.

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6904
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Weird fourm coversations - has the community gone soft?
« Reply #183 on: August 23, 2017, 10:14:10 AM »
Sigh.  I tried to stop the derail re religion.

Yes you did.  Did you forget that none of us have any control over where the forum threads go?

I knew that - I was just happier with the original topic and hoped I could re-rail the thread.  ;-)  The OT has been hashed out so many times before that it is boring.  Maybe in another page or 3 this thread will get interesting again, I can hope.
The measure of civilization is how people treat one another.

http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/meetups-and-social-events/ontario's-own-camp-mustache-2017/ - MEET US THERE!

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9365
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Weird fourm coversations - has the community gone soft?
« Reply #184 on: August 23, 2017, 10:50:26 AM »
By it's very definition having any faith in religion is irrational - it's the belief in something without proof.

I cannot prove that God exists, nor can you prove that he doesn't. This is true of all things metaphysical. We cannot observe that which is beyond our physical universe or is otherwise unobservable be it a multiverse, a top-down cosmology, or a computer simulation. At some level we are all irrational because we exist yet there is no purely rational provable explanation. Greek philosophers relied on the unmoved or prime mover, for some today it's the big bang, for others a creator being. As the saying goes, it's turtles all the way down.

OK?

It doesn't change the fact that belief in the unprovable is (by definition) irrational.  Which is what I was saying . . .

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6904
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Weird fourm coversations - has the community gone soft?
« Reply #185 on: August 23, 2017, 10:55:28 AM »
This thread (this forum) is like riding a horse you found by a pond and finding out it is a kelpie instead.  Wild ride ahead.
The measure of civilization is how people treat one another.

http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/meetups-and-social-events/ontario's-own-camp-mustache-2017/ - MEET US THERE!

FINate

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Weird fourm coversations - has the community gone soft?
« Reply #186 on: August 23, 2017, 10:56:17 AM »
By it's very definition having any faith in religion is irrational - it's the belief in something without proof.

I cannot prove that God exists, nor can you prove that he doesn't. This is true of all things metaphysical. We cannot observe that which is beyond our physical universe or is otherwise unobservable be it a multiverse, a top-down cosmology, or a computer simulation. At some level we are all irrational because we exist yet there is no purely rational provable explanation. Greek philosophers relied on the unmoved or prime mover, for some today it's the big bang, for others a creator being. As the saying goes, it's turtles all the way down.

OK?

It doesn't change the fact that belief in the unprovable is (by definition) irrational.  Which is what I was saying . . .

Fair enough, let me clarify. My point is that religious believe isn't necessarily more or less irrational than being areligious. Yet professing any kind of faith in God, or anything else metaphysical, is often looked down upon as being more irrational than philosophical naturalism. Sol is doing a great job of making this point.

gerardc

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 420
  • Age: 33
  • Location: SF bay area
Re: Weird fourm coversations - has the community gone soft?
« Reply #187 on: August 23, 2017, 11:07:54 AM »
It doesn't change the fact that belief in the unprovable is (by definition) irrational.  Which is what I was saying . . .

What if believing in god is due to a mental disorder that is entirely explainable by psychology, and that also causes X as a side effect. Would observing X be a proof that god exists in that case?


I cannot prove that God exists, nor can you prove that he doesn't.

We touched this in the debate about differences in intelligence between men and women. We can't prove there is a difference, but we can't prove there is no difference either. The null hypothesis puts the burden of the proof on the existence side, i.e. it doesn't exist unless proven otherwise. That's because that's the "reasonable" thing to do. Welcome to science, where you just stick the word "reasonable" to justify any prior belief you have.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9365
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Weird fourm coversations - has the community gone soft?
« Reply #188 on: August 23, 2017, 11:16:46 AM »
By it's very definition having any faith in religion is irrational - it's the belief in something without proof.

I cannot prove that God exists, nor can you prove that he doesn't. This is true of all things metaphysical. We cannot observe that which is beyond our physical universe or is otherwise unobservable be it a multiverse, a top-down cosmology, or a computer simulation. At some level we are all irrational because we exist yet there is no purely rational provable explanation. Greek philosophers relied on the unmoved or prime mover, for some today it's the big bang, for others a creator being. As the saying goes, it's turtles all the way down.

OK?

It doesn't change the fact that belief in the unprovable is (by definition) irrational.  Which is what I was saying . . .

Fair enough, let me clarify. My point is that religious believe isn't necessarily more or less irrational than being areligious. Yet professing any kind of faith in God, or anything else metaphysical, is often looked down upon as being more irrational than philosophical naturalism. Sol is doing a great job of making this point.

Having faith in God or anything else metaphysical isn't looked down upon as being irrational.  It is irrational by definition.  While you could argue that atheism is not rational either (it is a claim to know the unknowable, just as religion is), agnosticism also falls under the areligious banner while remaining wholly rational.





It doesn't change the fact that belief in the unprovable is (by definition) irrational.  Which is what I was saying . . .

What if believing in god is due to a mental disorder that is entirely explainable by psychology, and that also causes X as a side effect. Would observing X be a proof that god exists in that case?

If I'm schizophrenic and hear voices, do the voices exist?  To me maybe, but does that carry over to the rest of the world?

Not really, no.  You could prove that a chemical imbalance (or whatever the cause is) exists, you could show what the common side effects are.  It would be proof of an odd mental condition though, not that god exists.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5574
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Weird fourm coversations - has the community gone soft?
« Reply #189 on: August 23, 2017, 11:20:10 AM »
Fair enough, let me clarify. My point is that religious believe isn't necessarily more or less irrational than being areligious. Yet professing any kind of faith in God, or anything else metaphysical, is often looked down upon as being more irrational than philosophical naturalism. Sol is doing a great job of making this point.

You didn't need to turn this into a personal attack.

Philosophical naturalism, as you've defined it, is NOT the same thing as faith in the flying spaghetti monster.  You're still stuck equating "things that exist" with "things that do not exist" and claiming they are both equally valid.

I have no problem with believing in supernatural things that are not part of the physical universe.  If you think ghosts are real, you're not being inconsistent unless you also believe that ghosts can interact with the real world in some way.  An entirely separate universe, independent of ours and without any interaction, is not provable but also not theoretically inconsistent.  Unfortunately, people who believe in the supernatural seem to derive 100% of their belief from violating that separation.  Ghosts are real because I saw one.  Magic crystals are real because they healed me.  God is real because he answered my prayers.  These are each claims that the supernatural is natural, that it has some physical reality.

Belief in something unprovable, but not impossible, is a useless waste of time.  What possible bearing could it ever have on us, if it cannot interact with the real world in any way?  It can't be explanatory, or predictive, or contextual, or useful. 

And while we're on the topic, I should point out that lots of other things that don't exist in the physical universe are still "real" because they exist inside the mind, and thus impact our behavior.  "Patriotism" is my favorite example, because we all recognize it as a primary driver of human history, and yet it only exists within human culture.  It's an idea, not a real physical thing, but it's a powerful and consequential idea full of beauty and also the potential seeds of conflict.  I put "God(s)" and "patriotism" together in the same category.  They exist now as cultural artifacts but will cease to exist when the last human consciousness dies out, while the physical universe continues on for billions more years without noticing the loss.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2017, 11:23:58 AM by sol »

FINate

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Weird fourm coversations - has the community gone soft?
« Reply #190 on: August 23, 2017, 11:23:06 AM »
We touched this in the debate about differences in intelligence between men and women. We can't prove there is a difference, but we can't prove there is no difference either. The null hypothesis puts the burden of the proof on the existence side, i.e. it doesn't exist unless proven otherwise. That's because that's the "reasonable" thing to do. Welcome to science, where you just stick the word "reasonable" to justify any prior belief you have.

Science is a wonderful tool for describing and understanding the natural world, and I would never advocate defaulting to "God" while conducting science, hence my belief in evolution. But as science peels back each layer of mystery in the universe we find that there's always another layer. It's an infinite regression. It appears that you believe there's a purely natural explanation for every layer in the regression - that science can and will explain the nature of everything. I eagerly await your proof.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9365
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Weird fourm coversations - has the community gone soft?
« Reply #191 on: August 23, 2017, 11:35:00 AM »
We touched this in the debate about differences in intelligence between men and women. We can't prove there is a difference, but we can't prove there is no difference either. The null hypothesis puts the burden of the proof on the existence side, i.e. it doesn't exist unless proven otherwise. That's because that's the "reasonable" thing to do. Welcome to science, where you just stick the word "reasonable" to justify any prior belief you have.

Science is a wonderful tool for describing and understanding the natural world

What other world is there?


It appears that you believe there's a purely natural explanation for every layer in the regression - that science can and will explain the nature of everything. I eagerly await your proof.

This is a trap question.  Science doesn't need to explain an amorphous and undefinable 'everything'.  It needs to explain the things that can impact us.  The things that exist in our (natural) world.  Things that can be observed, studied, and experimented.  The reason that science is the default method of learning about things is that it is the most efficient method we've yet developed for doing this.  If you believe there is a more efficient method, please enlighten us.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5574
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Weird fourm coversations - has the community gone soft?
« Reply #192 on: August 23, 2017, 11:38:24 AM »
But as science peels back each layer of mystery in the universe we find that there's always another layer. It's an infinite regression. It appears that you believe there's a purely natural explanation for every layer in the regression - that science can and will explain the nature of everything. I eagerly await your proof.

That's funny, I would argue that the process you describe is exact what disproves the magical origins theory.

You've heard of the "God of the gaps"?  Once upon a time in human history, God was the explanation for everything we didn't understand, from plagues to pregnancy, from seasons to sunshine.  Over time, science has continued to solve these mysterious with provable explanations supported by universally observable facts, and religion has continued to retreat down the rabbit hole of remaining mysteries. Then science answers that next mystery, and religion retreats again, finding some remaining crevice that science has not yet fully explained.  Rinse and repeat.

Watching this process from the outside looks like religion is fighting a losing battle, running out of ground where God can hide.  It's not up to science to fill every crack in human knowledge all at once, and it shouldn't be up to religion to seek out the next mystery as justification for magical thinking.   Religion can exist as a beautiful and wondrous (and sometimes horrible) part of our cultural heritage without needing to resort to supernatural explanations for things science is still working on.  We don't need talking animals and supernatural miracles to explain our world anymore.  We can let those stories persist as just stories, without feeling compelled to research string theory to give them relevance they already have.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2017, 11:42:23 AM by sol »

FINate

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Weird fourm coversations - has the community gone soft?
« Reply #193 on: August 23, 2017, 11:48:49 AM »
You didn't need to turn this into a personal attack.

Philosophical naturalism, as you've defined it, is NOT the same thing as faith in the flying spaghetti monster.  You're still stuck equating "things that exist" with "things that do not exist" and claiming they are both equally valid.

I have no problem with believing in supernatural things that are not part of the physical universe.  If you think ghosts are real, you're not being inconsistent unless you also believe that ghosts can interact with the real world in some way.  An entirely separate universe, independent of ours and without any interaction, is not provable but also not theoretically inconsistent.  Unfortunately, people who believe in the supernatural seem to derive 100% of their belief from violating that separation.  Ghosts are real because I saw one.  Magic crystals are real because they healed me.  God is real because he answered my prayers.  These are each claims that the supernatural is natural, that it has some physical reality.

Belief in something unprovable, but not impossible, is a useless waste of time.  What possible bearing could it ever have on us, if it cannot interact with the real world in any way?  It can't be explanatory, or predictive, or contextual, or useful. 

And while we're on the topic, I should point out that lots of other things that don't exist in the physical universe are still "real" because they exist inside the mind, and thus impact our behavior.  "Patriotism" is my favorite example, because we all recognize it as a primary driver of human history, and yet it only exists within human culture.  It's an idea, not a real physical thing, but it's a powerful and consequential idea full of beauty and also the potential seeds of conflict.  I put "God(s)" and "patriotism" together in the same category.  They exist now as cultural artifacts but will cease to exist when the last human consciousness dies out, while the physical universe continues on for billions more years without noticing the loss.

How did I make this personal? Are you or aren't you saying that religious belief is necessarily more irrational than areligious belief? If you're saying that they may be equal in their rationality then I misunderstood your point and we are in violent agreement.

Philosophic naturalism is not something I've defined. AFAIK it's most accurately describes the believe that there is nothing supernatural (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)):

Quote
In philosophy, naturalism is the "idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world."

If the universe was created, be it an almighty God or a "teenage hacker in the next universe up" then of course that entity has the power to reach into their creation as they see fit. This would be an anomaly so this would not be empirically provable, so yes, from a scientific point of view it's a waste of time.  Which is why we should stop trying mixing science and religion. Science does a great job of explaining how things work, but it can't answer questions about why we exist, meaning, purpose, and such. Unless of course one concludes that nihilism is likely consequence of naturalism (I don't think this is necessarily the case, and I doubt very many people really believe there is no meaning to anything). And it follows that creationists should stop it with their pseudo-science - if you want to believe in literal day young earth creation, fine, but leave science out of it. See, now I've pissed off the other side...

And note that I qualified my statement with "necessarily" as in religious (or areligious) people can be more or less rational in their thinking. Rationality is orthogonal to faith.

FINate

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Weird fourm coversations - has the community gone soft?
« Reply #194 on: August 23, 2017, 11:56:35 AM »
We touched this in the debate about differences in intelligence between men and women. We can't prove there is a difference, but we can't prove there is no difference either. The null hypothesis puts the burden of the proof on the existence side, i.e. it doesn't exist unless proven otherwise. That's because that's the "reasonable" thing to do. Welcome to science, where you just stick the word "reasonable" to justify any prior belief you have.

Science is a wonderful tool for describing and understanding the natural world

What other world is there?

Good question, who knows. Is there a multiverse? Is there a spiritual realm?


It appears that you believe there's a purely natural explanation for every layer in the regression - that science can and will explain the nature of everything. I eagerly await your proof.

This is a trap question.  Science doesn't need to explain an amorphous and undefinable 'everything'.  It needs to explain the things that can impact us.  The things that exist in our (natural) world.  Things that can be observed, studied, and experimented.  The reason that science is the default method of learning about things is that it is the most efficient method we've yet developed for doing this.  If you believe there is a more efficient method, please enlighten us.

It's not a trap question just because you don't want to answer it.

I have no problem with science, the study of that which exists in our world and can be observed and experimented. However, what might more accurately be labled "scienceism" or a belief that science provides an all encompassing philosophy for describing everything, is just as much a religion as other religious beliefs.   

FINate

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Weird fourm coversations - has the community gone soft?
« Reply #195 on: August 23, 2017, 12:04:13 PM »
But as science peels back each layer of mystery in the universe we find that there's always another layer. It's an infinite regression. It appears that you believe there's a purely natural explanation for every layer in the regression - that science can and will explain the nature of everything. I eagerly await your proof.

That's funny, I would argue that the process you describe is exact what disproves the magical origins theory.

You've heard of the "God of the gaps"?  Once upon a time in human history, God was the explanation for everything we didn't understand, from plagues to pregnancy, from seasons to sunshine.  Over time, science has continued to solve these mysterious with provable explanations supported by universally observable facts, and religion has continued to retreat down the rabbit hole of remaining mysteries. Then science answers that next mystery, and religion retreats again, finding some remaining crevice that science has not yet fully explained.  Rinse and repeat.

Watching this process from the outside looks like religion is fighting a losing battle, running out of ground where God can hide.  It's not up to science to fill every crack in human knowledge all at once, and it shouldn't be up to religion to seek out the next mystery as justification for magical thinking.   Religion can exist as a beautiful and wondrous (and sometimes horrible) part of our cultural heritage without needing to resort to supernatural explanations for things science is still working on.  We don't need talking animals and supernatural miracles to explain our world anymore.  We can let those stories persist as just stories, without feeling compelled to research string theory to give them relevance they already have.

Huh, interesting POV. The more I learn about the universe - the immensity, intricacy, elegance, and beauty - the more my faith is strengthened. From my perspective, God revealed himself to humanity through ways in which they could understand at the time. It would be overwhelming gibberish if Moses wrote about atoms or quarks or DNA way back in the day.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5574
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Weird fourm coversations - has the community gone soft?
« Reply #196 on: August 23, 2017, 12:06:12 PM »
belief that science provides an all encompassing philosophy for describing everything, is just as much a religion as other religious beliefs.

You sound like the Trumpster equivocating about Nazi's who just committed murder by saying "on many sides" over and over again.  No.  There is no equivalence here. 

Science is not a religion, it's a method for finding facts.  It's an ever evolving process, a journey of discovery, not a fixed belief system.  Please stop conflating the issues at hand, either deliberately or accidentally.

Dabnasty

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 293
  • Age: 28
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: Weird fourm coversations - has the community gone soft?
« Reply #197 on: August 23, 2017, 12:11:16 PM »
Believing that some type of higher form/creator may exist = not irrational

Believing in a specific god who has done specific things without any evidence = irrational

π=irrational

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9365
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Weird fourm coversations - has the community gone soft?
« Reply #198 on: August 23, 2017, 12:14:37 PM »
We touched this in the debate about differences in intelligence between men and women. We can't prove there is a difference, but we can't prove there is no difference either. The null hypothesis puts the burden of the proof on the existence side, i.e. it doesn't exist unless proven otherwise. That's because that's the "reasonable" thing to do. Welcome to science, where you just stick the word "reasonable" to justify any prior belief you have.

Science is a wonderful tool for describing and understanding the natural world

What other world is there?

Good question, who knows. Is there a multiverse? Is there a spiritual realm?

If a tree falls in a spiritual forest, does it make a sound?  Whether it does or not, why should I care?





I have no problem with science, the study of that which exists in our world and can be observed and experimented. However, what might more accurately be labled "scienceism" or a belief that science provides an all encompassing philosophy for describing everything, is just as much a religion as other religious beliefs.

I think we might actually be on the same page here then.  Yeah, stuff that doesn't exist in the real (natural) world, stuff that is unknowable (reason for existence) is completely outside of the purview of science.  Science doesn't need to explain things that don't matter.

craiglepaige

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 795
  • Location: Ohio
Re: Weird fourm coversations - has the community gone soft?
« Reply #199 on: August 23, 2017, 12:28:32 PM »

 "Patriotism" is my favorite example, because we all recognize it as a primary driver of human history, and yet it only exists within human culture.  It's an idea, not a real physical thing, but it's a powerful and consequential idea full of beauty and also the potential seeds of conflict.

This is a statement/idea which I've been thinking about lately. I consider "Patriotism" the same as "Religionism" where all they do is separate us from one another. "We" becomes "Us" and "Them".

This idea of "my people, my country, my religion", leads to seeing others as different and therefore "less than". This starts from birth and it is ingrained in our everyday lives.

On the other hand, the idea of inclusivity is forced out of humans by ignorant people in control and we end up killing/hating each other because of it.

I'm happy to live in the US, a free country. But I don't think/judge myself better than people from other countries, considering I wasn't born in the US.
-The conqueror will always become a slave to his conquest.

- Eres Un Esclavo Financiero
https://youtu.be/GO1Fsp4cUTQ