Lukeprog Believes that...

Interesting lists im going to make one of my own.

I have some questions.

Will all God's creatures be saved?
Can money buy salvation?
Alone in the universe except for God, angels and demons, you mean? Or are they outside the universe?
Can you prove aliens don't exist?
Do you mean hard work invariably yields more than the other things, or only that it can do?
People are the way God made them, are they not? Did God make them basically bad?
Can you clarify what you are saying about true love? Do you mean that if technology were better than God's 'trick' we could all have a thousand robots to be perfect for us. I doubt any sane person could consider a robot their true love anyway.
So I guess that hell, for you, would involve being made to endlessly watch baseball, golf, Nascar and colorised B&W films (with the music removed from the soundtrack)? Pretty bad, but I can imagine worse.

I love you're thoughts on true love and i would like to share one of my favorite quotes, it's said by some lady from the movie 'cold dog soup'... "Love, brain malfunction, what's the difference?"

I'm wracking my brain to come up with more things I 'believe' like this, but I'm having a hard time. I'm certainly open to suggestions ("What do you believe about ______?")

It all depends on definitions of God. I believe in and feel a spiritual component to the universe but not any organised religions' definitions or general ideas.

I don't believe people are innately bad but i do believe ambitious, selfish, corrupt and exploitative people often rise to the top- whether in govt, corporations or religion. So original ideals and concepts are often distorted and even turned upside down.

I believe hard work and knowledge are important for advancement but self- confidence and ambition too override many virtues. Many decent intelligent and caring people "underachieve" in our material, employment obsesed societies, or are simply less obsessed with achieving, in terms of career, wealth etc. Just switch on the TV and you'll see loads of not very hard-working or knowledgaeble well-paid presenters/ entertainers, who became famous through looks and ego more than industry + intellect.

I believe money can buy off certain points of anxiety, unhappiness, ill health and poverty of course, but it doesn't buy deeper contentment. That comes from something within, or other external forces. The love of money and greed are the root of many problems in the world.

I agree that less guns + dangerous weapons = less violent deaths. It can hardly be convincingly argued otherwise.

I've always thought the "Guns don't kill people. People kill people" slogan (or any variants) is pretty ridiculous. For someone to be killed through gun violence, you need two things: (1) a gun, and (2) a person to pull the trigger. It doesn't make any sense to say that one element or the other doesn't kill; you need both. I agree with your second statement though, as guns just make it too easy to kill.

"National Gun Association" safety video: "And just remember, guns don't kill people. Dangerous minorities do." - Family Guy

I'll tell you what's hot. A woman who, if she doesn't like something about herself, changes it - that's hot. A woman who, if her man doesn't like something, changes it if she can - that's hot. A woman who makes her life great instead of complaining that it isn't - that's hot.

I'll tell you what's not hot. The question "Do you think I'm fat?" is not hot. The question, "Do you think my tits are small?" is not hot. A woman who burdens others with her insecurities is not hot. A woman who lives in sadness about her life instead of improving it is not hot.

I realize there are some women who are truthfully 100% secure about themselves. More power to them. But they are impossibly rare in this airbrushed pop culture society.

I find the same qualities admirable in men. I just didn't mention them above because I'm not sexually attracted to men.

I agree with the last statement "everyone is mentally ill". I once thought that you could label people as insane and have other people who are racist or shy. I see these as deficiencies, there is a lack of logic behide them but there is a reason for them happening.

I think i'll do one of these.

Fellow Listologists, I'm thinking about getting a custom bumper sticker, but I'm not sure if what I have in mind would be read the way I want it to be. I want to communicate with the above-linked graphic that:

1. Jesus loves you.
2. Christians often fail to love.
3. Seek Jesus' love.
4. Forgive Christians; they're human.

Is that the impression you get from my graphic, or should I tweak it? I could add at the very bottom something like "forgive them; they're human", but I want to keep things as simple and readable as possible (it'll be 30" by 3").

After a recent research rampage (which continues), I'm beginning to form some political opinions, especially concering current world events.

First, a few basics. I find labels like "Republican" or "Democrat" as unfitting as "Evangelical Christian" or even "Protestant." The tenets of either dominant USA political party are exercised as impurely as the tenets of Communism ever were. In general, I favor moral fundamentalism, smaller government, higher taxes, and complete reform in education, medicine, intellectual property, corporate rule, campaign finance. The Constitution needs tweaking with regards to citizens buying assault rifles and the heretofore made-up "right to privacy."

Troops must not be withdrawn from Iraq. Establishing a successful and lasting democracy in Iraq is the best thing Bush is doing and is far more important than the imagined "war on terrorism".

Bush didn't lie about WMDs, nor did he invade Iraq for oil. Bush has failed disasterously with the economy, national debt, foreign opinion, technological progress, Katrina & company, and especially political honesty. Also, Bush actually is an idiot (relatively speaking). Thank God Condi is there.

If the USA is going to embark on a nation-building campaign (which is not a bad idea, considering the number of horrible nations out there), we need to become much better at it very quickly.

Maybe all US citizens should be allowed to vote in all elections... if they pass a basic politics competancy test. For example, they'd have to explain the difference between budget deficit and trade deficit, mark Palestine on a map, compare the number of terror victims to totalitarian victims this decade, explain the political status of Taiwan, name the ruler of Saudi Arabia, summarize a current bill in Congress, etc. The USA (among others) is accelerating its own destruction because fundamentally misinformed and ignorant people are calling the shots. They are left to vote for whose handsome and has the most campaign funding. (BTW, I wouldn't pass the test.) This is a poor (underdeveloped) idea for many reasons, and I'm just thinking out loud.

Very Biblical and very wrong, polygamy is in the public eye thanks to HBO's Big Love. Tim Harfod at Slate examines the economic case for polygamy. But first: "I can think of some [women] who might prefer half of Orlando Bloom to all of Tim Harford — including my wife."

There are more than 10x as many men as women in US prisons, and "A little over one in 100 American men are in prison—but there are several states where one in five young black men are behind bars. Since most women marry men of a similar age, and of the same race and in the same state, there are some groups of women who face a dramatic shortfall of marriage partners." So, some women not only have fewer potential partners, but the men "not in prison suddenly have more bargaining power. Goodbye to doing the dishes and paying the rent; hello to mistresses and wham, bam, thank you ma'am."

Harford writes that women need more bargaining power. So they stay in school longer and hunt for more paid work. But that would be an uninformed decision, if a woman is doing those things to score a good partner. Freakonomics points out that with online dating, at least, a head of blonde hair is as likely to improve your chances as a 4-year college degree. Women looking for a good mate would do better to lose weight, get implants, and practice social skills than spend 4 years mastering medicine. Leave that to the men; Freakonomics also notes that money is, unsurprisingly, by far the most potent element for improving a man's attractiveness.

I love using numbers to excuse my sexism.

I am struck by the power of convenience in determining one's beliefs. In my Drugs, Alcohol, and Tobacco class, we discussed the effects of drug use on unborn children. Nearly all students vehementely professed that life begins long before birth, and mothers should be held accountable for any damage they do to their unborn children. Roughly 21/25 of these students were women of childbearing years, and I find it difficult to believe that everyone else in that class is also pro-life. When faced with an unwanted pregnancy, how many of them would tell themselves life begins at birth?

I'm aware of convenience driving my own beliefs. For example, I'd like to claim that life begins at implantation. Then:

1. The "morning after" pill is not murder.
2. Potential dozens of conceived cells that do not implant are not human deaths.
3. Unborn children remain valuable human lives, as I believe must be true according to science and reason.

There is at least one strong scientific argument for implantation as the start of life. Though genetic code is sealed at conception, implantation is the first marker that an individual human life has begun because twinning follows conception, but never implanatation.

People also hold many beliefs that are not at all convenient for them.

I'm gonna disagree with the fact that "breast implants, plastic surgery, etc. are hot." I read your reasoning, but I completely disagree.

If someone, unless they are horribly deformed (and I don't mean like cosmetic imperfections; I mean like the baby I saw a TV special on who was born with her face backwards), feels that because of peer/media/self pressure, they need to change who they are? That's pretty sad and probably speaks of some deeply-rooted psychological problems, perhaps even body dysmorphic disorder.

And body dysmorphic disorder is not hot.

Should I be jumping for joy or terrified?

I also really identify with that Hallelujah quote.

I signed up for Blue Frog to combat spam. Recently, I got an email saying that some spammer had gotten Blue Frog's list of clients and was going to spam them specifically to stop them from using Blue Frog to attack them. Apparently, the spammer had continued access to the list, because he/she wrote that if I removed myself from Blue Frog, I would stop receiving spam from him/her. Sure enough, I immediately began receiving tons of spam that made it past the GMail anti-spam filter; before this virtually no spam had gotten past it. I removed myself from Blue Frog and within hours the flood of spam stopped.

Just warning you to stay away from Blue Frog.

And, for fun, an email recently received from Blue Frog:

From recent news articles:
------------------------------

"One spammer has managed to identify e-mail addresses on a "do-not-spam" list touted as secure, taking advantage of an obvious flaw with such lists and prompting critics to wonder what took so long.

Blue Security described the spammer's tactics as "bullying" and "extortion" as well as a sign the company's controversial anti-spam tactics are working, annoying spammers enough to prompt such a response.

Critics, however, say such lists are fundamentally flawed."

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/03/AR2006050301954...

"zanek writes "In its "Gunfight at the OK Corral" with a spammer, controversial Blue Frog maker, Blue Security, was shot out of the saddle, completely losing its own website to a denial of service attack. In addition, Blue Frog client email addresses were reportedly exposed, and 10 million non-combatants in Typepad's blogging community assumed room temperature for at least twelve hours. So what did Blue Frog mean when it assured skeptical experts that there would be no innocent victims?""

www.newsforge.com/newsvac/06/05/06/0650234.shtml

"The denial-of-service attack that crashed TypePad and LiveJournal this week was caused by anti-spam company Blue Security, which pinned the target on the blog in an attempt to save its own servers, analysts said Thursday."

www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=187200448

"His argument doesn't hold water," said Underwood. Reshef had to know his site was under attack, what with 1 to 3 million packets per second hitting the site from just one of the two backbones upstream from the Blue Security domain. "I find it implausible that Blue Security didn't know it was being bombarded by 4 or 5 or 6 million packets a second."

www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=187200448

From Blue Security Services and Software License Agreement
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"6. Additional Terms of Membership.

c. Blue Security will not disclose your Email Address(es) to third parties, except that your Email Address(es) will appear on the Do Not Intrude Registry. Although the Do Not Intrude Registry is encrypted, You understand and agree that it may be possible for a third party to expose the encrypted email addresses in the Do Not Intrude Registry, and that Blue Security does not guarantee that such exposure will not occur."

From Blue Security Privacy Policy:
----------------------------------------
"Please be aware that despite our best intentions and the guidelines outlined in this privacy policy, no data transmission over the Internet or encryption method can be guaranteed to be 100% secure."

Not even an "Oops, sorry."

Here's what I love about Islam.

Why do people use the term "African American"? I have long been uncomfortable using the term "African American" over the more accurate "black." As Scaruffi puts it:

"Only in the USA can one think that the term 'African-American' is politically correct. My friend Gerard, a white man from South Africa who relocated to Pennsylvania, is an African-American. My friend Hassan, a Moroccan who relocated to California, is an African-American. The white Zimbabwean businessman whom i met in Argentina and the black Angolan student whom i met in Brazil are African-Americans. But that is not what USA citizens mean when they say 'African-American': they mean 'black person who lives in the USA'. Most USA citizens (particularly the self-appointed African-American ones) think of Africa as being only sub-Saharan Africa, and of America as being only the USA. And they do not consider white people born in Africa as 'African'. In other words, when they say 'African' they really mean 'person with a black skin', and when they say 'American' they really mean 'USA citizen'. I think that 'black'... is more precise and, excuse me, more politically correct."

Furthermore, if black people in the US are to be called "African American", why should I simply be called "American" instead of "European American"? So, "African American" is actually a discriminatory term, whereas "black" and "white" are purely descriptive.

Bill Gates today talked more about what he'd no longer be doing at Microsoft than what he would be doing with the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. But my TV news station showed him speaking in front of pictures of Africa. I really like to see billionaires speaking in front of pictures of Africa. It makes me happy.

Americans (by which I mean U.S. citizens) are the biggest bunch of whining babies ever. And the American Dream is to blame.

There is an expectation for stasis and continual hardship in most nations of the world, but the American Dream espouses the idea that one can (and should, by right) be better off than one's parents, have a loving, faithful, supportive spouse, beautiful and healthy children, a two-story house and two vehicles, a satisfying job, a thousand comforts, no experience with discrimination, and the power to change anything in politics one doesn't like. That the world doesn't work this way breeds continual discontent with ultimately trivial matters.

Reality fails to disempower the American Dream because popular fiction media perpetuate it. Movies, TV, and tabloids tell us that people live in mansions, have supermodel bodies, drive Hummers, and spend their weekends in Fiji. Professors are deeply interested in improving the quality of students' lives, forensics labs are stocked with $5 billion worth of equipment from the year 2010, etc. And the proliferation of Western media styles and content to the rest of the world is, probably, growing American-style discontent around the globe.

Thus it is that a friend of mine sobs that she can't afford to take one of her 4 dogs to the vet, while owning a jacuzzi, a house and truck, 10+ acres of land, and hundreds of DVDs.

Thus it is that a friend of mine bitterly complains that her coworkers don't invite her to parties and don't speak to her much. Her entry-level job at WalMart allows her to be in the 88th percentile of richest persons on the planet.

Thus it is that a friend of mine spends 10 minutes angrily ranting that a liquor store clerk wouldn't let him buy some rum because his under-age friend accompanied him inside the store. He'd have to drive - in his air-conditioned, $15,000 car - about 10 miles to the next liquor store, which he refused to do.

Thus it is that I complain that if a poorly-enrolled class this semester is cancelled, I'll have to transfer to the U of M a semester later to use what remains of my $30K college fund.

Ridiculous!

All humans are more similar than dissimilar, yet their remains great diversity that is the cause of constant beauty, change, and conflict. The most fundamental and affecting difference among humans is sex. Few issues intrigue me like sex differences and what happens when opposite sexes are intertwined.

A brief note about the intersexed. Though some recognize more than two sexes, it remains true that humans are genetically male or female, and the intersexed are products of developmental problems.

None of my thoughts on sex differences are new, and few will be surprising. These are perhaps the greatest arguments in their favor.

My perspective on sex differences is a potentially useful way of viewing them, not an explanation of them to the exclusion of theories. My perspective considers the critical question, a single but expansive question whose answer gives value, meaning, and satisfaction to the asker's life. Naturally, I suspect I'm closer to the mark on men than women.

Generally, a woman's question is, "Am I worthy?" Generally, a man's question is, "Am I potent?" Thoughts, behaviors, contexts, and people that answer "Yes" to one's critical question encourages the asker with self-esteem, contentment, pleasure, and hope. That which answers "No" to one's critical question discourages the asker with discontent, fear, confusion, and hopelessness. Ultimately, the critical question points to the source of one's value and satisfaction.

How this question and its answers manifest themselves is learned per culture and community. My extrapolation of this idea will focus on heterosexual relationships, as they are most common, and have been throughout history except for a few notable cultures (Ancient Greece, for example).

Am I Worthy?

Historically, and in many nations today, woman's question focused on her ability to produce and nurture children, especially boys. Sometimes it also included her ability to care for her husband, home, and extended family. Often, beauty was important.

The rise of romantic love, and its recent ties to marriage in some cultures, has narrowed the question to, "Am I worthy... of love?", and has shifted to focus to beauty, though most women still find significant worth in raising children, pleasing their husbands, or even in sustaining their families and contributing to society in a career. Relational at heart, women also find worth through maintaining relationships.

Thus, it is unsurprising to find women devestated by barrenness, unsuccessful children, an unhappy husband, a body that does not agree with cultural ideals of beauty, or failing relationships.

Am I Potent?

Man's question centers on his strength and competancy, especially in providing for and controlling his family, and in passing his lineage to sons. He may also find potency in achieving wealth and high social status, in battle, in political influence, and in making significant contributions to art, science, or philosophy.

Recently, the ideal of masculine potency has grown to include his sexual vitality, and the ability to seduce and sexually dominate women. In some cultures, male sexuality has become nearly as important to achieving a sense of potency as attaining wealth and status.

Thus, it is unsurprising to find men devestated by an inability to sustain their families and make money, positions of little influence, incompetancy in battle or a chosen profession, or lacking sexual power.

Marriage

From my perspective, a key necessity of marriage is the dedication of each partner to answer the other's critical question with an emphatic "Yes!" Wives, respect and admire your husbands. Affirm their potency in everything. Husbands, cherish your wives. Affirm their worthiness and beauty in everything.

OMFG! This is the best moment of American football I have ever seen.

Thanks, Rex, for pointing me to The Power of the Marginal.

LOL. In today's St. Paul Pioneer Press:

After Winona Excavating settled a dispute with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) in 2002 by offering to stop doing demolition work, the company instead continued to do these projects, but under another name: MPCAFU Inc.

Genius charity idea.

At New World Records, you can download the liner notes for every album in their catalog in PDF. Every label should do this.

I agree, especially with the second one. I've believed it since I was about 8 years old.

The only one I entirely disagree with is the "people are basically bad" idea. It is widely accepted in the psychological community (as evidenced through a great number of studies) that people aren't evil so much as thoughtless sheep, so easily influenced by social factors that we can be easily persuaded to perform even the most greatly evil of acts.

The best evidence was a set of famous studies done by Stanley Milgram a few decades ago. Research subjects were called into the lab, under the pretense that they were to be part of an experiment testing the effects of punishment on memory. To begin, these subjects were placed with one of Milgram's assistants, and draw was performed with their two names, in which one of them was selected to be the "teacher" and the other to be the "learner." The draw was rigged to always make the volunteer the so-called teacher. The subject was then placed next to a shock machine, and told that shocks would be used to train the "learner." For each wrong answer the learner gave on a word list he was currently memorizing, a shock was to be given. The level of shock was to be increased each time, going from 15 volts, up to 450 volts, increasing the shock level by 15 volt increments with each mistake, the higher levels of which were clearly labelled as extremely dangerous (the teacher was given one shock of 45 volts, which is a very painful experience, to give the subject an idea of what he was supposedly giving out). The researcher posing as another subject then entered the learning chamber, where Milram pretended to hook him up to the shock device. During the hook-up, the researcher complained about having a heart condition that shocks may elevate, and so to take that into account, loud enough for the real subject to hear. The room was then closed (but placed such that the teacher could hear everything going on inside), and the experient begun. Upon reaching around 90 volts, the researcher (not really hooked up) began to very convincingly yelp with pain. As the levels increased, the researcher began adding complaints, and eventually demanding to end the experiment, and later screaming in agony, before finally giving one last bloodcurdling scream, and falling silent (I've seen it done, it's very cnovincing). Now, almost every single subject on which the experiment was done expressed extreme misgivings throughout the shocking procedure. Everyone argued openly with the researchers, not wanting to continue. However, given a few probes by Milgram (there are 4, and the last to are "it is absolutely essential that you cntineu the experiment," and "You must continue the experiment"), 65% of all subjects could be convinced to go right to the end, an act that would be fatal for the man in attached to the machine were the experiment not staged.

(for more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment)

Now, this may seem to prove that humans are inherently evil, but a follow-up study was performed by Milgram that showed that humans are not, in fact, evil, but simply easily influenced sheep. The exact same experiment aws done, but in this case, the subjects were told they could shock with any level on the machine taht they wanted. They were then told that increasing the shock has been shown to promote learning (untrue), but they could pick any levels they would like to shock the victim, any would be completely acceptable. Less than 1% went to 450, and the vast majority stuck well below 90, despite being given the perfect opportunity to express any sadistic urges they might have. This shows the subjects were simply socially influenced in the first experiment, and not actualyl adistic. Further studies were done with the Milgram experiments in which different social factors were manipulated in various ways (changing the level of authority and expertise of the scientist in the eyes of the subject [ie: not mentioning his credentials, putting the experiment in a run-down office building versus a Yale laboratory, etc.], changing how immediate the victim is [ie: having the subjects actually place shock paddles on the victim, putting the victim out of hearing range, etc.], etc.). These changes vastly altered the percent of people willing to go to the end: it was found that greater immediacy lowered the number, and greater expertise and authority increased the number.

This "people are sheep" concept is further boosted by a huge number of other studies, but it would take too long to explain them all here. The best example is probably the Asch conformity experiments:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments

And studies on groupthink:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

(I have better sources for these things, but they're not online).

Philip Zimbardo (perhaps the world's most prominent living psychologist) also performed an excellent study evidencing the "sheep" view of humanity, with his famous prison experiment (which you'll find rings exspecially true in the wake of Abu Ghraib):
http://www.prisonexp.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

This is even logical from an evolutionary basis: a group of humans is more likely to survive if it acts in the interest of the "group," even if that means harming outsiders. The selfish genes are the ones that survive, and group-promoting genes such as mindless conformity would be strongly favored for in the highly social hunter-gatherer world in which humans evolved. ("The Selfish Gene" is a particularly good book on this subject)

Other studies have been performed showing why so many have the "humans are evil" view: mainly finding it stems from the media's relentless tendency to report only bad news, leading people to believe that only bad things ever happen in the world, and since they are caused by people, people must be evil.

Anyways, scientific evidence essentially finds no evidence or reason to believe humans are, in general, evil. All the evidence points to stupidity.

Note that evil has been proven to exist, though. Sociopathy is actually a real disorder in the DSM-IV (the psychologist's diagnostic bible: althugh it calls it "antisocial personality disorder). Recent studies have found some actual differences in the brain structure of such individuals.

(Sorry about the long post, there's just a lot to say on the subject.)

A few questions (I'm not criticizing your beliefs here or questioning them: I'm sure you've heard most, if not all of these things debated against you in your defence of your beliefs. I'm honestly just very genuinely interested in your answers, as I've never gotten an answer to any of these from a Christian before, ever, and you are a far more rational, thoughtful, and logical person than any Christian I have met to date)

How do you reconcile belief in creation and the Garden of Eden with your belief in evolution?

How did you experience God first-hand? (as you stated above)

What makes you so certain of the existence of the divine?

What is your proposed mechanism for human freedom and choice? (I have serious trouble with this one: quantum physics shows us that only the material can control the material: therefore ruling out a soul being anything but a passive bystander, if its there at all. My idea, personally, is that there is a structure in the brain wired such that it does indeed have such a choice. How this could pssibly work, I have no idea. But it's also possible I simply don't want to accept having no free will.)

How do you get past the obvious "social engineering" aspects of Christian religions, in your faith in Christianity? (in other words, the many aspects of all religions, Christianity included, that made a lot of sense as to be written into the religion to control the people in ways the law can't. The most obvious example is in the Jewish religion: they aren't allowed to mix meat and cheese. Now, meat and cheese go bad at different rates, especially the hotter climates where Judaism was born. If one went bad but not the other, that would waste food: something that would have often been scarse in those times [or, if they ate it anyway, they would get sick]. This, however, was a difficult concept to convey to the people living at this time. So, the rule was simply written into the religion, rather than having to educate the people on this subject. Christianity has these too)

How do you reconcile the MANY multiple re-translations and updates of the Bible with the belief that the Bible is god's pure word? (note how incredibly changed Japanese translations are after a single translation, how do you reconcile the [at least] dozens of translations of the Bible: which there must've been because of how must change there was in European boundaries and languages between the writing of the Bible and today. Note how difficult Shakespeare and Chaucer are to read, and how much translation they require, and they don't have a gap anywhere near as big, nor did they pass through the dark ages)

How do you account for the sheer quantity of religions in the world? Why choose Christianity over any of the others?

I was unable to do these things: I find it particularly interesting from the view of someone so similar to myself (in my program of study [and, it seems, the same year], with similar taste in things, etc.) who is willing to talk about such things rationally (as no other Christian in psychology I've met has yet: they just rage at me for not accepting Jesus if the subject comes up).