Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
zk
Participant[quote=CA renter]
Your tone regarding religious people sounds a lot like how religious people talk about the non-religious.
[/quote]
Scenario: A guy holds in his hands a large clod of a what, by all earthly appearances, is dirt. He tells me it’s actually gold. He tells me that his god has cast a spell on this gold to make it look and feel and otherwise appear like dirt. He says his god will reveal it to be gold at a future time. He says I only don’t know that it’s gold because I don’t have faith in his god, whom he calls “Goldie.” Should my disappointed and maybe dismissive tone toward his belief that this clod is actually gold be viewed the same as his disappointed and maybe dismissive tone toward my belief that it’s dirt?
[quote=CA renter]There are many people who would swear on their firstborns’ lives that they have seen evidence of reincarnation or some sort of miracle that justifies their beliefs, too. Some things cannot be explained by science as we know it.
[/quote]People have delusions and hallucinations all the time. Why are they only given credence when they fit somebody’s religion? There have been many people throughout history who sacrificed their firstborn children for religious purposes. So they obviously believed strongly enough to wager their firstborn’s lives that their religion was true. That doesn’t make their religion true.
Most people see and believe what they want to see and believe. That is a flaw of most humans. That doesn’t make those things true. Not everything can be explained by science. But people believing what they want to can be explained by science.
[quote=CA renter]Many physicists, astronomers, and other scientists are religious or believe in some kind of higher power, too. How would you explain that? Are they just fools who are intellectually inferior to atheists? [/quote]
Are they just fools who are intellectually inferior to atheists? Well, that’s a two part question. Are they intellectually inferior to people who think there is almost certainly no god? Not necessarily. Are they fools? If you count people as fools who believe what they want rather than what they would see if they were looking clearly, then yes. Do I count those people as fools? Not necessarily. I do think it’s a flaw, though. A fairly large one.
[quote=CA renter]
Let’s just accept that none of us knows anything for a fact, especially regarding the afterlife and all of the possibilities of the universe. Insisting that there is absolutely no god or higher power is every bit as nonsensical as insisting that there is a god. We simply don’t know…none of us will know until after we are dead, if even then.[/quote]
Show me where I insisted that there is absolutely no god or higher power, CA renter. You can’t do it, because I’ve never said it. In fact, I’ve said many times, even on this blog, that no one can be absolutely certain of anything. I’ve also said that we need a new word in English to describe people who don’t “believe” in god, but who aren’t absolutely certain there’s no god only because they understand that they don’t know enough about the universe to be absolutely certain, but who see, based on what they do know of the universe, that the likelihood of god is so infinitesimal as to be easily and completely dismissed from consideration. If I hold a clump of dirt in my hand, could it really be gold? Yes. Some trick of the universe (or Goldie) could be making it look and feel like dirt to me, and it could really be gold. Am I going to mortgage my house and buy a new Maserati and hope to pay for it with this gold? No. Am I going to accuse anybody who does that of wishful thinking? Yes. If the existence of god is as likely as that clump of dirt actually being gold, am I going to base my life on belief in god? No. Am I going to believe in god? Only if I trick myself into it. Which I can’t/won’t do. Is somebody who believes in god intellectually inferior to me? Depends what you mean by “intellectually.” Are they inferior in their ability to see reality as the evidence presents it rather than how they want to see it? Yes, I think they are.Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]we tried to raise our kids with religion. Church every week, sunday school, baptisms, etc. One random day in church, our then 5 year old turned and said, “Mama, there is no G-d. This is not true”.
No idea how he spontaneously and unprompted came to that conclusion at 5.
I believed in the value of a religion as a way to control the kids and maybe provide some comfort or guidance through early years and was hoping they wouldnt figure that out till 25 or 30 if ever….[/quote]
Very interesting.
My mom was catholic. Having been skeptical since I could remember, I asked her on the way home from church one day when I was 6 or 7 where god came from. She said, “he’s always been there.” I pressed for a better answer, but none was forthcoming. I’ve been basically an atheist ever since.
I understand about providing comfort or guidance. Well, comfort, anyway. Sometimes I think maybe I should’ve shown my daughter religion for that purpose. I know her quite well, though, and I don’t think she would’ve fallen for it.
Participant[quote=Blogstar]Go Madison Wisconsin! Just say yes to those who say no to G-D.
I want to post this on my face book page but I have deleted everyone who posts blatant pro- religious or political stuff so that would be hypocritical on my part.https://news.yahoo.com/america-beginning-accept-atheists-214209363.html%5B/quote%5D
The title of that article is:
“Is America beginning to accept atheists?”
Sad that our nation (and our species in general) is reluctant to accept people because they don’t live their life according to a fantasy. A fantasy that originated before humans had the ability to explain the sun and the moon, but which has persisted among the unable-to-accept-reality crowd (most humans) since. A fantasy which most christians (and probably lots of other religious people) only favor their particular flavor of because a hundred and fifty or a thousand or two thousand years ago somebody coerced or tricked or forced their ancestors to at least pretend they favored that flavor. A fantasy that, while it generally claims to be informed by an omnipotent being, does, in most cases, change over time.
There must have been some evolutionary advantage to believing what you want to believe, rather than believing what the evidence tells you. And there was a rather obvious evolutionary advantage to not accepting people different from you. Add those two up, and I guess you get modern humans. Religious, and not willing to accept the non-religious. But just because that’s the way humans are, doesn’t mean it’s good.
Participant[quote=CA renter]
Also, what did you use to replace the UC Verde, zk?[/quote]
We replaced it with regular old fescue. I made the lawn lower than the surrounding concrete and very level, and capped the drains. Therefore there’s zero runoff. Which helps a bit. Still more water then the buffalo grass. But it’s green in the winter, doesn’t shed runners, and it’s softer. It feels softer to me anyway.
Participant[quote=svelte][quote=no_such_reality]I’m not a fan of artificial grass. I think there are other alternatives like xeriscape or buffalo grass.
.[/quote]Kinda depends upon what you want to do in the space.
Buffalo grass may work, but weed control is an issue.
But its kinda hard to kick a soccer ball around a xeriscaped area.[/quote]
We had “UC Verde buffalo grass” for a while. It wasn’t bad, but it didn’t work for us. The water savings was less than I expected. It spread by runners, and if the runner hit established grass, it just died. So you’ve got hundreds of dead runners blowing all over, making a bit of a mess. Plus it’s brown in the winter. Just a couple things to keep in mind.
ParticipantI could be reading it wrong, but it seems that the city of San Diego might exclude artificial turf in their rebate program, and that other programs only pay if you comply with the city’s guidelines.
http://www.sandiego.gov/water/conservation/rebates/grassreplacement.shtml
Note that on that webpage, it says artificial turf won’t get you a rebate in their program, but it points to two other rebate programs, and says that rebates “may” be available through those programs. Of those two links, one link refers you back to the other link, and that link says that applicants must “follow any additional requirements for their city.”
If anybody reads that different or knows what the story is, I’d be very interested to hear.
ParticipantIf I had a billion dollars, I wouldn’t move more than a mile or two from where we’re at right now. I think San Diego is a beautiful place to live.
Participant[quote=ocrenter][quote=zk]Got several estimates. Only from highly-reviewed companies. For a 5.2kw system with micro inverters, quotes ranged from $19,800 to $21,500.
We’re going with Home Energy Systems, which was on the lower end of those estimates. They did our neighbor down the street, who gave them a glowing review. We’ll see how it turns out.[/quote]
Are you going with Solar World panels? Is that why the price is so high?[/quote]
I’m going with LG panels. I got quotes for various types of panels, most of which were higher than the above quotes. (The above quotes were all for 17 LG 305s w/ micro inverters). What kind of panels did you use and what company is installing it?
ParticipantThat’s before tax credits. Cost after credits will be 70% of those numbers.
Keep in mind, 5.2kw (DC) is a relatively small system.
ParticipantGot several estimates. Only from highly-reviewed companies. For a 5.2kw system with micro inverters, quotes ranged from $19,800 to $21,500.
We’re going with Home Energy Systems, which was on the lower end of those estimates. They did our neighbor down the street, who gave them a glowing review. We’ll see how it turns out.
Participant[quote=rockingtime]Per my experience, san diego is not the best place to call this as permanent base job keeping in mind the flight of jobs to cheaper cost places along with difficult to do business in CA.
This is at-least what I see from anecdotal evidences.[/quote]
A perfect example of why anecdotal evidence should not be used to make decisions (if more comprehensive data exist(s)).
The parenthetical “s” is for you, Rich.
Participant[quote=spdrun] As close to responsibility-free ownership of property as you can get.[/quote]
Maybe. But the op doesn’t sound, to me, like he’s looking for responsibility-free anything. He sounds like he’d gladly take a more responsibility-requiring approach, if that’s what it takes to get what he wants.
Kristopher, I think your plan sounds quite reasonable. Something to consider: your plans may change. I bought my first house when I was 25. It wasn’t in an area I wanted to stay in forever, so I didn’t plan on staying. My second house (I was 28) was in an area I really liked, and I thought I’d stay in that house forever. I bought/moved to other primary residences at 30, 35, 41, and 49. Each I thought was my last. You just never know.
ParticipantGood point, joe.
My SDG+E bill averages $225, of which about $185 is electric.
SDG+E’s rates, for tiers 1-4 are (where I live): 17/20/37/39 cents/kwh. That’s a big jump from tier 2 to tier 3. If you’re staying in tiers 1 and 2, it might not be a no brainer.
For me, it’ll pay for itself in about 6 years, and I’ll have free or almost free electric for at least another 19 years after that.
That’s a pretty hard return to beat, especially with basically a sure thing.
ParticipantGet solar. I’m doing that right now. Getting estimates. It’s a no brainer if you can pay cash. Even if you have to finance, it’s probably a good thing.
-
AuthorPosts
