Rustam Eynaliyev

Baku, Azerbaijan

About Rustam

An idea worth spreading

Whole body transplantation . Transplanting your brain to the clone-body version of you in case of severe body damage or aging of body.

Talk to me about

Anything

Comments & conversations

132629
Rustam Eynaliyev
Posted 4 months ago
Richard Wilkinson: How economic inequality harms societies
the premise of his argument is at best questionable and at worst false and misleading. He shows data which presents us with differences in life expectancy (not the only measure of living standards but let's roll with this for the sake of the argument) between rich and poor within same countries and how there is less correlation between life expectancy and income among countries and jumps to the argument that it's the relative standing within the society that determines living standards and in this case life expectancy specifically...neglecting the fact that there very well could be other, cultural differences at play which explain why income differences among countries do not strongly correlate to life expectancy. Be it their food culture, climate, genes...this is a gross oversimplification. If we assume that some other, non-financial factor is at play here, then the hole premise of relative importance of income over nominal importance of income falls flat on its face. Which I believe is the case. The same reasoning goes against his arguments for things like crime and etc. USA is a multi-cultural society and other countries on the chart index of health and social problems compared to income inequality are homogenous...especially Japan...also the Nordics...if anything this seems like a correlation between cultural division in society and the index would be more accurate...especially considering that Singapore, which had the highest level of income inequality enjoys very high levels of health, low levels of crime and low unemployment. Yes they are multi-cultural, but the perhaps the only multicultural place which has been very successful at integrating and uniting its minorities. At the end of the day, correlation doesn't equal causation. And finding a data set compiled by a third-party doesn't prove the opposite.
132629
Rustam Eynaliyev
Posted over 2 years ago
Is God Real?
It'll be unchanged if everyone accepts it. I refuse to accept indoctrination as some kind of unavoidable path. The best solution imo, is to expose children to other cultures and let them decide. I agree, we won't know for sure whether God exists or not, and that's not the issue. The issue is, that parents, who don't know themselves, for some reason think they know it well enough to have their children identify with the religion of their choice.
132629
Rustam Eynaliyev
Posted over 2 years ago
Is God Real?
there is reason for discussion. That reason is children. Namely indoctrination. I don't care what an adult believes or why s/he believes it as long as that choice is consciously made. Religions have figured out a way to make people think that it's the default state to be a believer if they're born in some place rather than another. I was born and raised as a muslim. I would've probably stayed that way if it wasn't for my travelling and seeing different cultures. I don't mind a person being muslim or anything else as long as they chose it...not because someone said it or they were brought up that way because of societal norms. If religions were treated the same way as everything else - treated is disbelief and required a reason to believe in them, then I bet they'd be far less popular. Religious organizations have huge impact on societies and disregarding them or keeping quiet about them is just making it easier for them to do whatever they want. We've had enough of that (Crusades, wars, indulgence, tax exemption and many more). No more.
132629
Rustam Eynaliyev
Posted over 2 years ago
Gold standard
who puts a price on the shoes you have? Is it the business owner? Sure, retail store owner says to sell it for e.g. $100. But why...why not $10000000? Because nobody'd buy it. Why not for $1 so that everybody can buy it? Because the manufacturer sold it to him for e.g. $40 and he'd be losing money if he sold for anything less than that. Why did manufacturer charge $40? because he figured out he'd make the highest price at the given price. Now moving to gold. Let's say dollars are replaced by gold. And all goods in an economy are shoes. Everybody produces shoes, buys shoes and loves shoes. If there are 100 grams of gold in an economy, and that gold is commonly accepted as means of exchange, and there are 100 shoes produced in the economy each shoe would cost a gram of gold. Forces of the market decide the prices of goods. Currencies don't have intrinsic value. They are only worth the goods people are willing to give up for them. E.g. 10 eggs are 1 gram of gold and a watermelon is 1 g of gold. That means people value 1 watermelon and 10 eggs the same. You can do barter, but currency makes exchange more efficient.
132629
Rustam Eynaliyev
Posted over 2 years ago
Gold standard
market. If nobody's willing to pay for your gold price goes down, if everybody wants it you raise the price. Forces of supply and demand.
132629
Rustam Eynaliyev
Posted over 2 years ago
Is God Real?
there are many reasons to not believe in God. They vary with the God you choose. Let's take the most popular one - Christian God - Christians have an almighty and all powerful God and a scripture. That scripture has arguments in it which are proven wrong. 6000yo earth. But that's not the point. The point is, you think I have to prove nonexistence of God. I disagree. Proving nonexistence is indeed trying to prove a negative which is usually impossible. I am not trying to prove nonexistence of god, rather I'm trying to give my reason for not believing in it. It's very simple. It's the same reason why I don't believe in a spaghetti monster or Santa Claus. I don't have a reason to. As I said earlier the default state of a person is disbelief. Once there is a reason to change it, we change it. Meaning it's not me who needs to give a reason for my disbelief in God, it's religious people or god itself that has to give me a reason to believe in it. Or I must find a reason. I don't have a reason and haven't seen or heard good enough of a reason to make me believe in god. I do not make a claim to knowing that god does or doesn't exist - rather my belief that it doesn't due to absence of a reason to believe otherwise.
132629
Rustam Eynaliyev
Posted over 2 years ago
Is God Real?
meaning it's not me who has to disprove existence of God, it's the God that must give me a reason to believe in it.
132629
Rustam Eynaliyev
Posted over 2 years ago
Is God Real?
it creates a universe, stars and planets, humans, sends us scriptures (or whatever religion you choose to follow) and creates heaven and hell and etc. And then judges everybody by some arbitrary set of standards it comes up with. In this case...who's God to you? The one who created us, or the ones who created the one who created us? This kind of questions eliminate Pascal's wager-like arguments. After this lengthy post, I think you see my argument is quite simple: I don't see any reason to believe in God. The default for me just as everybody else is disbelief. When you choose to believe something you must have a reason. It could be something like it makes you feel good, or it interferes with your life or it's backed by evidence, thus you need to incorporate it in your belief system to function better (e.g. gravity will pull you down whether you believe in it or not, thus resisting would be futile). I do not think there's a good reason to believe in God, thus I go to my default set of disbelief. Simple
132629
Rustam Eynaliyev
Posted over 2 years ago
Is God Real?
I've said that I do not believe in knowledge. God's existence or non-existence seems to be a fact that doesn't really depend on whether we believe in it or not - which also can be doubted. Since I do not believe in knowledge then the only hing left to us are beliefs. Then, we must look into what are the reasons for believing in God. Here are the following reasons I've seen in believers: 1) social acceptance 2) it's a good story to tell yourself to feel better 3) fear to go to hell or some other utility from belief in God 1st reason - I don't care much for 2nd reason - I've stated my opinion on the God's morality and I don't think God is a good story to tell thus this is out of the way for me. 3rd - there could be a reason to be afraid of going to hell and we could use Pascal's wager as an argument but here's my take on it: 1) Scientific evidence (which is the best guess we have) disproves ideas stated in holy books (existence of life, and other so called "facts") which should put a doubt into minds of believers, if that part is false...even though some say that scriptures were changed and not preserved in original form - then which part of it isn't? Who's to say that all of it isn't. Pascal's wager-like arguments are completely useless because of one simple question: which God to believe in? Sure he tried investigating various religions but thousands of arguments can be made against his logic as well as methods. It could be any of the thousands of Gods or something completely different. The God itself could be wrong. Let's take an example. Let's say some ridiculously, to us unimaginable advanced race decides for whatever their advanced purposes are, to create another creature which's also unimaginably advanced to us, but still is far beyond their power. Now they implant ideas in its head that and make their existence unknown to that creature. It assumes it's the only one, and only and the master of everything