assessing*

You can be selective with who you work with, but don't burn bridges. If the interviewer is not capable of accessing the position or your capabilities, then the politely and assertively ask to speaking with someone who can.

They're literally doing God's work.

The problem with religion, nay the world, is thinking one's own will is the will of God's.

This is an interesting conclusion. Could you point to examples that let you reach such a generalization?

In the U.S., there were a lot of intellectual movements in the mid-1800s to early 1900s. This was when the common man actually read literature for insight, entertainment, and enrichment, and then discussed what they read with their fellowman.

... or, more likely, anyone who holds a differing political view can be labelled as a dissenter.

So you say iMessage? I would not be the least bit surprised if NSA had access to that, too.

This is probably the reason iMessage/iChat doesn't support third-party encryption tools like OTR. Apple used to offer encryption for the mac.com subscribers, but I believe that has since been removed.

Apple isn't alone on this, anything made by Microsoft is suspected of having a backdoor.

Georgism is just one form of left-libertarianism. There have been others who have different ideas on the appropriation of resources and property. Steiner–Vallentyne is another POV...

Recommended reading: The Origins of Left-Libertarianism: An Anthology of Historical Writings.

I know many highly talented artists, actors, physicists, biologists, and writers, but they can't find a livable wage. Where are these jobs you speak of?

Most resort to spending decades poor until they are finally recognized.

This. It wouldn't have to be socialist, but it seems there would need to be a full-fledged welfare system to ensure an individual's percentage of wealth and opportunity.

You have been unable to articulate and support a position. Yes, my IQ is higher than Stephen Hawking's. Surprise, not all intelligent people are physicists. Just because you were unable to understand my "ramblings", does not make it nonsense.

You created at least two dichotomies: natural and supernatural, religion and science, and insinuated natural law as being empirical -- that which has yet to be proven/verified with mathematical logic must not exist.

"Wanting" things to happen is not the same as "believing" something will happen. And yes, it's all well documented. Google it or go to your local university's library. You completely ignored my other example that's well discussed in metaphysics. Stop nit-picking to suit your agenda, and stop attacking people who are being friendly.

You might want to ask Einstein where he got his general theory of relativity. A physicist is only useful when he's properly educated in poetics and philosophy.

Again, stay in school.

You do not understand Markov's chain.

Again, your insults are in vain. I had to correct your every irrational dichotomy. Your intelligence is revealed when you make this a personal affair. Glad we got to the heart of the matter.

my IQ = 220
your IQ = 120 at best.

How's that for your dumb thick head? The disparity in our intellect alone is comparing Einstein with a monkey.

Suck it.

Careful there, it's supported by over three schools of philosophical thought, quantum mechanics, and every poet.

Stay in school. It seems to be the only hope for hopelessness.

You are the one speaking in absolutes, narrowed-mindedness, and empirical bullshit. That is the very definition of stupidity.

Congrats, kid. You've just shown yourself as an ignorant beast. Look for another website that is more suitable to your intellect.

You seem to have a misunderstanding of the words you are using. To clarify...

Supernatural doesn't equal religion. However, religion relies upon moral law which is traditionally seen as being dictated by the supernatural. If you want to debate moral law, that's fine, but I think you'd might want to find a different website. Also read Nietzsche, Kant, and Schopenhauer before doing so. For the record, I am more in agreement with Nietzsche.

"Science", in modern context, refers to the scientific philosophy practiced by neo-positivists. It's fashionable these days to dismiss reality when it can't be verified by mathematical logic. But I guess it's always been trendy to be stupid, arrogant, and foolish. No one wants to think anymore.

Furthermore, there is no religion/science dichotomy. It is stupid and simpleminded to even try to frame a debate or argument with this pretense. I know it's popular, but it's tiresome. I will ignore it. It's fueled by people's petty personal insecurities and psychological disorders. It is just as stupid and childish as saying you are "atheist", "agnostic", or "religious".

Trust thyself. The universe is too beautiful and awe-inspiring to be so dismissive.

You are talking in absolutes and creating a dichotomy that doesn't exist. I think you are also failing to understand both religion and science. Maybe you are a student. You are also holding a childish caricature of what is often attributed to the supernatural (e.g. "purple fish in your head")

Religion has nothing to do with the supernatural. It is a social construct. Religion has, however, created a mythos, fables of sort, to help define how one should live. Sometimes it relates to the supernatural. That certainly isn't one and the same.

Regardless, I won't be discussing religion with you nor is it relevant to this thread...

First, I hold no beliefs and only speak from experience, insight, and education. The same with those who came before me. So what does that say about your ability to reason? It means what you just said was nonsense (i.e. not applicable). That's a failure of reasoning and comprehension on your part. You shouldn't be so quick to dismiss thousands of years of thought; that's naively dangerous.

Neither does evidence contradict the supernatural, quite the contrary. This is a thread on the topic of cosmology, which is a subset of metaphysical philosophy which sets out to explain both the natural and supernatural.

Let's take a moment to describe what the supernatural is...

I will use the word you just used, "belief". If I believe something will happen, the likelihood of it occurring has been increased beyond measure. It's a paradox. Belief itself is power and has the ability to bend natural law. Science is beginning to recognize this in theory.

Take another example... for instance, higher thought itself is independent of a singular mind and is transcendental. I would attribute this to the supernatural. What about you? It certainly doesn't involve natural law.

Sure... Poetry, Philosophy, Art-- all higher schools of thought and reasoning that science derives its pursuits from.

What you are doing by holding the science of natural law as some supreme form of thought is dismissing its very origin. You are divorcing it from all beauty and higher purpose.

Let's take poetic symbolism as an example of a predecessor, as it is regarded as the highest form of thought and consciousness:

"the sound of stars" or "the grinding of cosmos". Only until recently did science recognize that stars emit sound and is actually a useful way to deduce their internal composition.

Same applies to the work of Newton and Einstein.

Bolded for emphasis. We call it "impossible" because it can't actually happen, like the supernatural. The improbable is not supernatural. Rolling 10 sixes in a row on an unweighted die is improbable but not supernatural. Things considered supernatural are not improbable- they are impossible. That is why they are labelled supernatural.

Take your 10 sixes and roll them again a billion times. Would you say that was impossible or improbable? Can you fully understand what it would take to reproduce our current existence starting from the big bang? No, you can't. Nor is it reproducible. We only have rudimentary theories based upon our current comprehension that we may never be able to practice.

What other forces are involved?

No, I agree with its implications it is just not all-encompassing. I am not the one with the hang-up here. You are the one narrowing its scope to what we understand as natural law.

What I meant is exactly what I said: that science is currently an "inferior" school of thought and means of reasoning. It has barely begun to explain life. Art is light years ahead.