Blog: GunStonesUnborn
Blog Article: Bill Nye the Christian Guy (He just doesn't know it yet).
Date: 2/5/2014 (Viewed 2/20/2014)
Blog Address: http://gunstonesunborn.wordpress.com/2014/02/05/bill-nye-the-christian-guy-he-just-doesnt-know-it-yet/#comments
Comment:
I actually have serious reservations with the notion that only Christians can perceive beauty. Beauty is preference, different people find different things beautiful. The existence of a preference does not proof or disproof God or show anyone’s belief in God or what sect that one should belong to.
Replies:
savycat (2/20/2014): I don’t think that there is anyone who could honestly say that the Grand Canyon isn’t beautiful, it isn’t just a matter of “preference.” Beauty is abstract and not something that can just be calculated or determined by science. If Bill Nye really didn’t believe in God, then his worldview should be consistent with that claim and he therefore wouldn’t be able to perceive beauty- just chemical reactions and scientific processes that are just natural occurrences and without need for designation as beautiful. If there is no standard for beauty (the same with right and wrong, etc) then nothing can be beautiful. I would argue that God is the standard of beauty and all people, even “atheists” that are made in his image and have the capability of perceiving that beauty because it is innate.
Me (PoliticalGuard): (2/21/2014)
I have no idea. I’ve never been. But unless you ask everyone in the world if they think the Grand Canyon is beautiful, it wouldn’t be reasonable to assume everyone thinks it is beautiful. However it is reasonable to assume that at least one person would, honestly, not find the Grand Canyon beautiful (either they find it ugly or are indifferent). The presence of one deviation will be a problem for beauty as you’ve described it.
I agree that beauty is abstract. Like most abstract things, it is open to thought and interpretation. What drives our thoughts and interpretations? Our preferences. For example we have two people, one very religious Catholic, one that is an atheist. Both are in a church watching a sermon. The sermon is lovely. The church is very ornate, the pastor is articulate, the choir is filled with exceptional singers. The religious person finds the service beautiful, because they have a preference towards religious services. The atheist, as you would expect, is indifferent or uncomfortable. They do not find it beautiful; they have a preference against religious services.
Also, based off your common “-just chemical reactions and scientific processes that are just natural occurrence and without need for designation as beautiful,” would it be fair to say your saying there is no evolutionary need for the concept of beauty?
Blog: The Tin Lizard
Blog Article: Olympic Musing
Date: 2/15/2014
Blog Address: (link removed pending approval of comment).
The poor conditions of Sochi games make me wonder about the condition of the Russian government and their finances. You'd think that a government would want to make sure that, if they are hosting the games, they'd make sure that everything was perfect. As close to perfect as you can get. Games that go bad, in any aspect, reflects badly on the host country.
It makes me think that the government either lacks the competence or the finances to make sure that everything was up to the standards that the Olympic games would presumably demand. In my opinion though, more developments would be necessary for a sure answer.
My problem with a permanent home for the games (either summer or winter) is that the games, regardless of origin, have seem to become something that the whole world feels some ownership to (at least the developed world/states with the resources to either host or watch the games). With this in mind there would be serious debate and question over where the permanent home of the games should be, and those states with more international influence would have an, perhaps, unfair advantage over those with less influence.
Replies: n/a
_________________________________________________________________________________
Blog: What If?
Blog Title: A New Direction
Date 1/26/2014
Blog Address: http://moot.typepad.com/what_if/2014/01/a-new-direction.html#comments
My Comment:
I agree that sometimes people don't realize that, liberal or conservative, for the most part we have the same goals just different ideas on how to get to those goals.
There are some selfish people out there but it is unfair (and actually one of my first blog posts touched on this) to say that all conservatives are selfish and heartless.
Replies: n/a
__________________________________________________________________________________
Blog: What If?
Blog Article: For the Minimum Wage Fans
Date: 11/20/2013
Blog Address: http://moot.typepad.com/what_if/2013/11/for-the-minimum-wage-fans.html#comments
My Comment:
You correctly point out that the minimum wage argument is not an easy one. Minimum wages lead to more income security (even if just slightly) but also leave some without a job (because the increased wage causes businesses to high less then they otherwise would). The numbers seem to show this.
Numbers are important, but they are not the only thing. The increase in minimum wage may lead to increased unemployment but that doesn't happen magically. Business leaders make a conscious decision to hire less because it will cost them more. Some business might even have to do this because this is the only way they can survive. Seems logical.
Then what is the problem? Some business leaders do this, not necessarily to protect their businesses but to protect their million dollar salaries, bonuses, and stock options and those of their upper level manager. More money then any one human could conceivably need.
Replies: n/a
__________________________________________________________________________________
[If you find that your blog is mentioned on this page and wish it not to be, please comment on this page asking it to be removed]
No comments:
Post a Comment