Top products from r/TMBR

We found 24 product mentions on r/TMBR. We ranked the 22 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.

Next page

Top comments that mention products on r/TMBR:

u/Bilbo_Fraggins · 2 pointsr/TMBR

Highly unlikely. There's not even good evidence most of the apostles were martyred. Furthermore, the beauty and utility of marterdom was also a core idea of Second Temple Judaism, and despite people trying to get themselves martyred, it happened much less than you probably think. There's only about 5 named individuals we're confident in, and, for example, one of the most preminant scholars of early Christianity (Rodney Stark) estimates the total at less than 100.

Also, we have records of exactly nobody claiming to have seen Jesus in the flesh, only people claiming many years later that other people claimed to have seen him, and Paul claiming a spiritual vision.

I highly recommend picking up one of Stark's books to get a sympathetic but rigerous view of the actual history of early Christianity and why it grew, which will help you understand your religion quite a bit more. Diarmaid MacCulloch's Christianity, The First Three Thousand Years is another good history, though IMHO not quite as informative as it doesn't follow the sociological factors quite as closely. Those are both solid books by excellent historians who are more positive toward Christianity than average for experts in the field, and I think you'd find them useful.

u/Decency · 0 pointsr/TMBR

> You're assuming the unintelligent only mate with the unintelligent. You're also not factoring correlations between intelligence, wealth and health. The intellegent are liable to have healthier children which in turn are more likely to reproduce.

I don't see how an intelligent person mating with an unintelligent one would have any impact on the trend, you'll have to explain why that assumption is an issue in further detail. The study I linked to tested for other confounding variables: it finds: "A women's educational level is the best predictor of how many children she will have." As for them being healthy, the death rates for children in developed countries is absolutely miniscule compared to the differing numbers given for birth rate by education. even if you assume every single death is to an unintelligent couple, it won't come close to making up the difference.

> Also don't forget, just because there are a lot of stupid people doesn't mean they'll be in charge.

This will likely trend off topic, but suffice it to say that in a democracy it's the job of the populace to ensure that stupid people aren't put in charge.

> What? IQs have gone up worldwide consistently in the modern era.

See my reply to someone else:

> I don't consider IQ tests to be very good measures of intelligence, especially in modern times when people's education is entirely centered around taking tests, not on applying their skills to real world situations or the act of learning, as it has been in the past. The majority of questions on IQ tests that I've seen are more "tricks" or simple knowledge than any sort of quantitative measure of learning potential, as they claim to be. People who have a natural curiosity tend to be better learners and thus know more of these "tricks" and "puzzles" so there's definitely a correlation between IQ tests and intelligence, by not by cause.

> Also worth noting, the same author for whom the effect is named after seems to have come to the same conclusion: The first thing Flynn did is disaggregate the IQ trends into their subcomponents. He observed that the improvement over time were very different depending on the domain. On arithmetic and vocabulary questions, IQs remained virtually flat for decades; Meanwhile, on 'similarities' and 'picture riddles' IQs went through the roof.

u/YouTwistedWords · 6 pointsr/TMBR

Humans are a social species. Our survival, as a group, is dependent on how we operate as a group. The ability for an individual to reproduce is not as important as it is for our tribe to reproduce.

A popular theory that relates this idea to issues of homosexuality, is that gay people serve a sociological purpose in helping to care for children whose parents die or are injured. If every member of the tribe was baby-making, there would be too many kids and some would end up dying anyway. Having some extra non-reproducing care-givers allows us to focus on advancing the tribe, rather than on simply trying to keep as many people alive as possible.

I would recommend the book Sex at Dawn if you want to read more about this. The book covers a lot of other interesting information too.

One of my favorite tidbits from the book; Ancient tribes, and even some aboriginal tribes that still exist today, did not practice monogamy, and they believed that a baby was the result of accumulated semen from many men. As such, our ancestors didn't really have the concept of a single father. All the men of the village treated all of the children of the village as their shared cum-blob babies that they helped produce along with the other men of the tribe.

u/ambiturnal · 1 pointr/TMBR

Here's a helpful reading suggestion Shakespeare's Game by William Gibson (Amazon link) Gibson explains in the intro that he felt helpless for a short time, because his uninteresting students could not be taught how to become interesting. Instead, he taught them how to write plays that would not cause an audience to walk out after the first act. He dissects every play Shakespeare wrote, explaining the mechanics of character development, and the importance of each type of line and story arc, etc... I completely disagree with your English teacher. Experience does not cause a person to be more creative. Star Trek is crap, though. Again... read Gibson. If you read the first three chapters, you will better understand your own ideas.

u/VanBurenOG · 3 pointsr/TMBR

Gene Roddenberry used a lot of legal and quasi-related topics as the basis for Star Trek. So, other way around but good catch.

If you're interested in this topic

u/theclapp · 2 pointsr/TMBR

Many people here seem to take your assertion in the context of logic, and I think your example made it clear that that's not the right context.

Ellis and Harper expand in your idea in A Guide to Rational Living. I think you might enjoy it (if you haven't already read it :).

u/kwanijml · 2 pointsr/TMBR

Very insightful comment, thank you. I don't find a lot I can disagree with here...it certainly softens, at least, the level to which I think hypocrisy is likely taking place.

As an aside, and just because you delved in to the whole collective vs. individual rights thing, you might be interested to explore what I call the intuitionist moral philosophy of political legitimacy. I believe that it successfully finds hybrid of deontological and consequentialist positions, and it is what I largely adhere to in my personal moral code as it regards rights and political authority.

I only know of it in book form The Problem of Political Authority , so assuming you're not going to buy it, I can suggest this decent review, and also access to the first chapter

u/slappymcnutface · 2 pointsr/TMBR

A bunch of people have been writing about this idea of power becoming more decentralized for a while now.

> The gradual development of the equality of conditions is therefore a providential fact, and it possesses all the characteristics of a divine decree: it is universal, it is durable, it constantly eludes all human interference, and all events as well as all men contribute to its progress.

And this guy just recently wrote a book about it, and here's a kind of stupid video that sums it up:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9AXhmYaob0

And you know how people say that technology develops faster than we learn how to use it responsibly? Let's hope we can do that with information. You're absolutely right that we have more potential now than ever to create an almost utopian democracy where everyone is informed. But so far people seem to be slow on learning how to properly use the internet and TV channels.. lots of bullshit out there you know?

I just hope that we can learn to be more responsible democratic citizens before the people get all the power and we really do ourselves in.

u/brobIerone · 5 pointsr/TMBR

I believe good timing and luck are just as critical, if not moreso, as the other qualities. Outliers makes a good argument for this.

u/Bells-On-Sunday · 1 pointr/TMBR

Sorry, should have been more explicit. I mentioned in another reply that I'm about to start on this book which claims that Godel proved that "In any universe described by GR, time cannot exist". A review that I read explains that G. was able to model a universe using E.'s mathematics in which "intuitive" time doesn't exit -- any two events are joined continuously, and G. concluded that time is another spatial dimension, despite the difference in the way we experience it. What I don't understand (not having read the book) is the inference that because GR describes a possible universe in which time "doesn't exist", then it can't exist. E. accepted the result "reluctantly" because he couldn't refute it. Godel was quite the genius eh?

It's a pop-sci book, I've never heard of this result before despite being interested in logic and philosophy myself, and after flicking through it the writing style is a bit sensationalist. But I just found an academic paper on the subject for you, published in a reasonably reputable outlet, might be a better place to look: https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwj_tbjEsqnQAhVjB8AKHS4tCeQQFggiMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhrcak.srce.hr%2Ffile%2F19095&usg=AFQjCNHSsByQUAsaDyjoktOD7WEY6ETxVA

u/vacuousaptitude · 2 pointsr/TMBR

Humans did not eat exclusively raw food in nature. The consumption of cooked food makes the food 'easier' for our bodies to process. While the total nutritional volume is decreased slightly, this ease of processing results in a higher bio-availability of nutrients than by eating raw food. Put simply, we get more nutrients out of cooked food than raw food, even though raw food has more nutrients, because it is easier for our bodies to process.

This reduced the amount of time our ancestors had to spend foraging and grazing considerably. Our nearest ape cousins spend upwards of eight hours per day consuming food, because the lower bioavailibility of raw food means they have to keep eating and eating and eating to meet their bodies needs. Our ancestors using fire and cooking foods allowed us to reduce that time to between one and two hours, allowing us more time as a species for other pursuits. These include tool making, social interaction, the development of more complex languages, culture, trade and so on. There's a book you may want to read on the matter:

https://www.amazon.com/Catching-Fire-Cooking-Made-Human/dp/1469298708

u/stemgang · 2 pointsr/TMBR

Stop focusing on the big picture. Of course it's all meaningless compared to all of time and the entire universe.

You're alive now. You can find meaning in pleasure or in suffering. Try reading Man's Search for Meaning

Also....

Can I have your stuff?

u/304292 · 2 pointsr/TMBR

I've been thinking about this lately. Who decides what is moral and what isn't. One person can say that killing people is immoral, but why does that make it true? Some people probably think that killing people is moral. So what makes one of them "right"?


I haven't actually read it yet but somebody recommended that I look into Ayn Rand, a philosopher who talks about why philosophy is objective. I was recommended this book https://www.amazon.ca/Objectivism-Philosophy-Ayn-Rand-Library-ebook/dp/B002OSXDB4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1485900801&sr=8-1&keywords=objectivism+the+philosophy+of+ayn+rand


Maybe you could give it a read. Let me know what you think.

u/Pinyta · 1 pointr/TMBR

!disagreewithop

I can't believe this is something that needs to be addressed. I mean the Wikipedia article has a really good overview of how the process of how it was "legalized", and the issues that arose due to it.

You can even look into the declassified CIA torture report to find out more. Surprisingly they conclude that most terrorists that they were dealing with were talking before they were tortured and when tortured they completely shut down and refused to give any more information that could be proven accurate. I would suggest looking into the story about Khalid Shaikh Mohammed story, or Abu Zubaydeh (Who has yet to be charged of anything and won damages from the European Court of Human Rights). Both stories are insane considering that 100% of the information gained from them was obtained BEFORE they were subjected to torture. The report also explicitly stated that people who were tortured would give misinformation simply to stop the torture.

> Their torture will not negatively affect you or anybody you know, unless you like to make friends with terrorists.

This statement is so completely misguided. Many individuals who committed terrorist attacks following the US invasion in Iraq explicitly stated that the reason for the attack was due to the US torture program.

> Only people who commit acts of terror or similar horrendous attacks should be tortured.

This is an absolute impossible bar to hit. There is overwhelming evidence that the vast majority of the people that were apprehended by the US were completely innocent and were simply turned over b/c the US was paying large amounts of money for "terrorists". One such story you can read here.

Again, I can't believe that this could be a belief that anyone that isn't an insanely reactionary person could hold. This has been debunked so many times it absolutely laughable that one could still hold this view.