Slashdot Mirror
Extreme Christmas Lights In Orlando
tripmine writes "The Orlando Sentinel has a story about a geek who can't get enough Christmas light. 'This Christmas, tech-savvy people such as Hansen are increasingly building the biggest, most elaborate holiday lights in neighborhoods across Central Florida and throughout the country. They typically work in fields such as computer programming, Web development, engineering or audio and visual services and are armed with a technical knowledge that the average person lacks. They trade tips and stories on message boards and set up Web sites with step-by-step descriptions of how they installed their lights as well as pictures and videos of the finished product.'" Many cities have neighborhoods where the spectacle takes up blocks at a time, not just individual houses, too, as anyone who's strolled down Austin's 37th Street can attest. Links invited (in comments) to the best / worst light-spectacles you know of.
Or the police would've locked down the city already.
What's the point to banning some incandescent light bulbs if this bullshit is allowed?
These type of flashy animated displays are like flashing HTML text and all the other tacky crap from 90's web design.
It can be done a lot more tastefully.
The ratio of people to cake is too big
Where's my BB Gun? I'm HOPING to put someones eye out.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
The article mentions several light shows. The one from the video is south of Orlando in Kissimmee, but several of the others are actually in Orlando (or close enough at any rate).
Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
FTFA:
Hansen's 25,000-light display is synchronized to five songs, which he broadcasts over an FM-radio frequency so passers-by can pick it up in their cars.
Radio broadcasts a/k/a "public performance" of likely-unlicensed music? So who's gonna get him first? The RIAA? The ASCAP? The FCC?
Takin' all bets!
Rochester Michigan has a really nice light display setup on all of the stores on Main St. Here's a link to a slideshow from the company that put them up. Not surprisingly, the lights cause gridlock for about a mile in each direction, but it's worth it.
Most annoying neighbor ever? I'd be looking into cutting their power lines after the first evening. But I'm a bit of a depressed grinch.
Who has money for the energy bill from Christmas lights? Our household is very financially secure, but I'm not looking to spend thousands over the season to run the lights. My neighbor, who isn't really decked out as much as some, said his bill will be over $600 more this months for his lighting scheme. OUCH.
I'm sure the environmentalists will cry foul, and I understand that philosophy, but for me, the lights are putting more demand on electricity, which means I'll pay a higher bill myself.
The wife and I do like to see the more extravagant lighting setups out there, but we have noticed that some homes aren't running them 7 days a week. Wonder if its an electrical bill concern.
Back when I was in high school, my family lived in southern Florida. Miami, specifically. This kind of crap is extremely prevalent around there, and I'm not sure exactly why. At any rate, one year our neighbor, as usual, had up several thousands of lights, along with the usual array of motorized reindeer, inflatable Santa Claus, and of course a big plastic glowing Jesus (what Jesus has to do with a pagan/capitalist holiday I'm not sure).
Anyways, a huge ugly array of crap that probably took a lot of work to put up--a perfect target for neighborhood hooligans looking to spoil peoples' hard work, right? Not so. The neighbor's display remained untouched. Meanwhile over at our house, we had simply arranged some lights in the shape of a peace sign over our garage door. Within two days all the lights had been torn down and stomped on. Ah, America...
Well, the FCC should have no claim, as most small transceivers aren't powerful enough to require FCC licensing. Now the RIAA (ASCAP?... maybe, but think that only applies to live performances) may have some sort of claim.
Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
Of course, it's all fun and games until the bus of epileptic kids drives by.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Computer controlled, fully programmable.
Lite-o-rama
If you're insane and anal enough to do it right. Some of the displays are pretty impressive, though. In an over the top, freaky, kind of way.
Hell all it would take it a bucket of water on an unprotected outlet. Not that I'm trying to give anyone ideas or anything... but that's one way to take them out. If I was his neighbor, I'd be turning on the sprinklers full blast.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
Once I was with my family driving around looking at lights when we saw one house that had a huge nativity scene set up in their front yard. It had Mary, Joesph, the wise men, the whole nine yards. But it also had a huge fucking grim reaper behind the manager leaning over it all. I guess they were too lazy to take down the Halloween decorations all the way before setting up for Christmas, or they were just ape shit insane. Probably a little of each
Thats not creative at all. its just plain old boring.
Now, THIS is original and creative. Id love to see the neighbors faces when this thing fires up on the front lawn! If some pinheads flashing lights annoy you, just pay them back with the wonderfully tuned sound of static discharge! Enjoy!
I still prefer the more understated FSM Holiday Display.
For pure unadulterated camp, you can't beat the display on the 700 block of 34th Street in Baltimore's neighborhood of Hampden. Each traditional row house is decorated to the owner's own taste and vision, and while they aren't particularly technical, they certainly do make a splash. They've been lighting up that block for so long that realtors feel it's mandatory to warn prospective home buyers that they'll have to light up, too. There's a pretty good sampling here.
"Here's what's happening. You're starting to drive like your Dad..." - Red Green
the energy required will soon surpass the rating of a standard household connection, but thankfully revolutionsing nuclear systems from Toshiba is promising to deliver lots of luminous joy for Christmas to come.
No, you misheard: you triggered the seizures!
I bet this guy drives a Prius and talks about reducing his carbon footprint all the time, too. ;-)
Didn't Carson Williams do this a couple years ago? I saw someone linking to Lightorama, which is the software he used, but I don't see a link to his video. In any case, while it may not have quite as many lights, I feel his Wizards in Winter performance was a lot better orchestrated.
It'd be more impressive if it wasn't 21C there. Try putting up all those lights in 3 feet of snow.
of the American public.
I watched part the video and it was like watching the eighteen wheeled log-hauler coming your way in front of you on the narrow mountain road suddenly jackknife and the tree trunks go up and over before coming down like a bunch of really BIG pick-up-sticks. (And you hope like Hell you jambed on the brakes fast enough!)
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
You forgot about the fact that the year is totally wrong as well.
I like to say that we can tell how much God* cared about Jesus's date of birth by how much he divinely inspired the priests to get the date and year correct. :)
*Of course, I could also point out that it's yet more evidence of the non-existence of God, but that's another subject.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
This one is from Newmarket which is just north of Toronto Ontario:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXk0wc5qXuo
This one gained instant fame a year ago. Again it is a house located just north of Toronto:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4983931962566123785
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
And saturnalia is just a celebration of the winter solstice and the birth of the new year.
Deleted
When I saw the "Jesus" sign, I thought it was apropos because I was thinking, "Jesus, what a fucking tacky, ostentatious display." Very Christian. He is more full of... the holy spirit than thouist.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
It is just xmas, no need for fancy lights. Thankfully it will be over in another day anyway.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I saw something like this, but it wasn't at Christmas. All you need is a little LSD. MUCH scarier though.
I don't think the human race will survive the coming global warming and after watching that video, I don't think we deserve to either.
The display gets full points for not having any taste though..
Are they using CFL Christmas lights? Oh sorry, don't want to offend the liberals, "holiday lights?"
Oh yeah, these are geeks. The CFL Christma... sorry, "holiday tree" lights are the wrong color temperature and they give the whiney geeks headaches. And you can't dim 'em. Can't have that, planet be damned.
Peace on earth goodwill to men, I wonder how much electricity these displays take? Vain, selfich rich kids. Lets just do away with Christmas altogether.
Sorry, I'm having a really bad day today. I'm trying for funny but shit... troll? flamebait? Offtopic? You're the mod, go ahead, make my day.
-Dirty Hairy
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Will IT be visible by Dawn? What will SHE have to say about it?
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
This light thing is some other form of penis size competition. Every year, Christmas is more about business and show off and less about its origins.
Disclaimer: I'm not a religious person but I think you don't need to believe in God to admire Jesus work at that time. If he was in our time he would certainly be against the war in Iraq. He was a pacifist, unlike most of his hard line followers.
Math is beautiful... e^(pi*i)+1=0
... on Eucalyptus Avenue in San Carlos the whole neighborhood gets involved with spectacular lighting displays. While not technically elaborate or geeky as the linked video, it is still quite a sight. Kids, young and old, certainly enjoy it walking up and down the street enjoying the hospitality of the home owners.
Of course, it's a sight that would make Al Gore cry, but he's an old Hum Bugger anyway.
If enough houses got together, they could make a great set of fake runway lights for aircraft.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I captured this video last night
The Chaos Computer Club's Blinkenlights project lets you hook up games like Pong to hotel lighting systems. With the better resolution and greater refresh rate offered by christmas lights, it should be possible to get Doom or Quake to play quite nicely over the side of a mountain or something.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
It always amazes me to see that the ones who least embody what the Christians claim to stand for are almost always the ones professing to be the most devout followers. I've met some very nice Christians who feel very strongly about their religion, but are still respectful of others, but sadly I've met many more who are practically militant about their particular flavor of Kool-Aid. I generally of course don't care what people happen to believe in so long as they don't break a few simple rules. First, I don't want to hear about it. Second, I don't want my tax dollars funding it. And Third it has no place in our legal process. So, I don't care if they have some message in their lights, they're their lights, they can put whatever they want in them, just so long as they leave me alone and don't expect me to do anything, or put up anything specific in my lights.
Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
While pre-existing times of celebration were appropriated, this is common throughout culture and history, regardless of religion.
While saturnalia, etc., may be a pagan holiday, Christmas itself is very much about Christ. I find it strange that people are so eager to denigrate one particular religion's holidays...it's pretty small-minded and disgusting.
What's sad is that while you seem thoughtful and reasonable, many in this thread are actively hostile toward others just because of their religion, while at the same time accusing the religious of small-mindedness.
A digusting double-standard.
Christmas is a liturgy. It doesn't matter the exact day, what matters is the event. Most christians are aware of this. What you see as "taken over" earlier pagan traditions can easily, and more neutrally be charactized as "adopted".And you don't think you are boadcasting your ignorance and bigotry of christians on slashdot?
Light Pollution International Dark-Sky Association Starry Night Lights
Canada.
Yeah. Would you choose a neurosurgeon who pokes around people's brains in his spare time? I wouldn't.
We usually take our daughter to see it every year.
Unfortunately I think a lot of that stems from the particular breakout of users on this site. Out in general public most of those that have some non-traditional religious views (just about anything but Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or maybe even one of the eastern religions) are constantly reminded of the various religions opinions about virtually everything. Furthermore they often must censor themselves around certain individuals (such as extended family they still wish to remain on speaking terms with) and go along with many things during public events that they would rather not. It's also somewhat scary to see powerful business and political leaders giving speeches in which they attribute far reaching actions and opinions to personal religious beliefs rather then sound reasoning. As a result of this I think they tend to lash out at people on /. which is one of the few venues in which we're all free to speak our minds. No, it isn't fair to those that are Christian or otherwise, but all I can say is try to reason with them as best you can and hopefully the mods will balance things out. If they get enough -1 flamebait or -1 troll mods maybe they'll learn to back down and act more reasonably, and if you provide reasoned and articulate responses it might help to counter some of the prevailing view of the religious as being militant and out of touch with reality. Ultimately of course if the discussion comes down to religion there is no way to "win" that argument, if you disagree on it. Religion by its very nature cannot be logically argued, so everyone just needs to accept that their views are different and there's nothing to be done about.
Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
http://www.komar.org/cgi-bin/christmas_webcam
I think what the OP was trying to say was that the pagan religion of Yule was originally modified by Christians in an attempt to a. convert pagans over to christianity b. "gloss over" the pagan holiday in an attempt to prevent other people from discovering it, becomming curious, and partaking in it and c. recently has been perpetuated in an attempt to gain mass amounts of money from the general public.
This is actually true with most christian holidays. This is not bigotry against christianity, it's the truth. Just like the jews being poor and dirty in The Passion wasn't bigotry, it was the truth...jews were poor and dirty back then. Just like saying black people have big lips isn't racist...it's simply the truth; they do in fact have big lips.
If anything, modern-day christians should be more pissed than modern-day pagans about this...the holiday that is supposed to celebrate the birth of their saviour is simply a retooling of a much older pagan celebration once considered by the church to be inspired by the devil. If as a christian that doesn't piss you off...you need to read this paragraph again.
Living With a Nerd
You're assuming he's talking about Jesus Christ. This is Florida. He could just as easily been referring to Jesus Martinez, the Cuban man whose cheap labor made stringing all those lights up a possibility.
The Internet is generally stupid
Whoa, lay off the eggnog yourself there pal.
:P)
Actually, I'm at work right now, you know, working (I'm a Jew...a lonely Jew...)
Also, I shut off all my gear before I leave the house, except for my file server since, you know, it's a server.
Put up all the lights you want (especially if they're LEDs), and nobody's going to stop you, not even me. So lay off the invective.
(P.S. My desktop has a 350W power supply and only one 22" LCD
There is a guy here in Utah that makes a pretty cool Christmas display with lights timed to music and all that, here are some pics http://www.christmasutah.com/2007_lights.html If you are in the area, it is definitely worth seeing. (Google ads on the bottom, I am not the owner of the website)
It is annoying, pedantic whiners like you who give the rest of us atheists a bad name. Who cares when Christians want to celebrate the birth of Jesus? Cultural tolerance should extend to local culture just as much as to all the others. So as long as you aren't being physically forced to participate, just ignore them and stop whining.
Yeah, because Christ totally wants you to buy that electric train set for your child. Or maybe a laptop, or a skateboard, or a car.
And it's Christ who compells you to lie to your child about the existence of a fat, jolly man who flies around the world in a single night, to bring presents to everyone -- but hey, you believe in Christ, so why wouldn't you believe in Santa?
I get what you're trying to say -- that the spirit of Christmas is about giving and sharing and being cheerful on the darkest of winter days. But that's absolutely not what Christmas is about today. (Oh, and it's not just the time that was appropriated...)
I didn't actually see GP denigrating any holidays, just one particular guy's ignorance about its origins. Even you must realize that "the reason for the season" is dead wrong, even if it was the reason for the holiday (which it isn't).
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
I always like to remind myself that the other "side" thinks that I'm going to hell (or equivalent). It's always fun to have a conversation with someone when they think that you are a condemned soul... sort of trips up the whole conversation between equals thing right from the start. That's why it's funny to see these religious summits where they have interfaith councils... they all think that the other is so completely wrong that they are condemned to suffer for eternity. Nice start.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Basicaly it is a bunch of groups of lights that go on and off individually. The first time I saw something like this a few years ago it was impressive. Now it is just another one.
It would be more impressive if he were realy steering each light individualy and thus making his whole house a screen. The real chalange would be to have more then one angle in which it looks great (no just good). This would mean some weeks or months of 3d modelling first to see how it works.
The obvious next step whould be a connection to the Internet, although a repeating message with "Fuck Global Warming" would be also apropriate.
Some other lights here from 2005 and although in one colour, better then the one now posted
Here also something that looks better and is from 2006.
A last one is here.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Christians didn't 'steal' other cultures methods of celebration. Other cultures brought their methods of celebration as they converted and in many cases have been adopted by christians as a whole. This is true in non-religious celebrations as well. My wife (and her family) are from the middle east. July 4th diners typical consists of Kabob and Hummus. I don't consider them trying to "take over" our customs.
Yes, the history of christianity is tainted in blood -- as is every theology. Antitheologic philosophies are likewise tainted (see China, USSR). To stereotype an entire belief system as the OP did defines what bigotry is.
So...what you are saying is, is that "as a whole", christianity accepted the methods of celebration that other cultures used...those other cultures being the same ones that were accused of working in-tandem with the devil, and considered bad enough to be destroyed in mass numbers?
I'm not saying christianity is the only religion that has blood on it's hands...the majority of religions do, in some form or another. What I'm trying to understand though is what sense does it make to adopt the celebrations from a group of people that the CHURCH THEMSELVES decided were agents and tools for the devil?
If I were a christian (I'm not...I wouldn't consider myself anything, insofar as religion is concerned) the very idea that the church accepted and actually ENCOURAGED the celebrations brought forward by converts from a religion that was supposed to be about devil worship and blasphemy of MY god would be enough for me to secede from the church completely.
How does it not piss off christians that many of the traditions used in the celebration for the birth of their saviour came from the very people that their church was denouncing and killing? See...this is why religion is stupid to me. If you aren't willing to accept doublespeak in politics...why are you willing to accept it in religion?
Living With a Nerd
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
good reply. Thanks for posting this. Wish I had mod points to mod you up.
I have no
Talk about 'misread': I thought you wrote, it would be cool to see it in prison.
WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
Jesus is, indeed, the reason why people care about Christmas at all. Funny how people like you complain about revisionism, and then try to ignore facts like this.
Maybe you don't believe in Jesus. But that is, in fact, the reason why Christmas is celebrated by billions of people. Each of those billions may have their own reason for celebrating Christmas, but they wouldn't be celebrating it at all if not for that primary reason.
My point is that it wasn't "the CHURCH THEMSELVES" that started celebrating Christmas as a Christian holiday. So there's nothing to understand, or not understand. If I were a christian (I'm not...I wouldn't consider myself anything, insofar as religion is concerned) the very idea that the church accepted and actually ENCOURAGED the celebrations brought forward by converts from a religion that was supposed to be about devil worship and blasphemy of MY god would be enough for me to secede from the church completely. That's stupid. It happened over a period of generations. It's not like they were persecuting people who celebrated the holiday one day, and embracing it the next. How does it not piss off christians that many of the traditions used in the celebration for the birth of their saviour came from the very people that their church was denouncing and killing? Why would it? In what logical sense is that remotely offensive? See...this is why religion is stupid to me. If you aren't willing to accept doublespeak in politics...why are you willing to accept it in religion? There is no example of "doublespeak" here.
You're acting like the church today -- as if there is such a monolithic entity that can be called "the church" -- agreed with the church from hundreds of years earlier when it killed people for "heresy." That's rubbish.
Most people today recognize that this is all just symbols, and symbols have no inherent meaning. A Nazi cross means one thing to most of us, but to some South Americans means something completely different. A Confederate flag means different things to different people. A Christmas tree has only whatever meaning we give to it. There is no pagan symbol or Christian symbol: that is, literally, nonsense. There are only pagan and Christian MEANINGS for whatever symbols happen to be present. So as long as your meaning is a valid one, then whatever symbols you have -- Christmas presents, Easter bunnies, whatever -- don't matter one bit.
Just imagine, if you could only organize the neighbors just a little bit, sorta like a block party, and string all the house lights together, to create a beowolf cluster-formation! Wow! You might even get mentioned in /. it'd be so cool!
You can't be ahead of the curve, if you're stuck in a loop.
My response to your post is from a response I gave to another person in this thread:
How does it not piss off christians that many of the traditions used in the celebration for the birth of their saviour came from the very people that their church was denouncing and killing? See...this is why religion is stupid to me. If you aren't willing to accept doublespeak in politics...why are you willing to accept it in religion?
Living With a Nerd
If what you are saying is true, does that mean I could take the cross and say that to me, it's symbolism is important to my religion? What if my religion was based upon all of the things that christianity hated? What if my religion was called "assfucking homosexual thiefism"? You know...What if I had a cross made with two men hobnobbing each other... and to me, this truly, honestly, was a divine symbol that represented my view of an infinite deity that created everything. Do you honestly think christians the world over would just shrug, and say "well, it's what it means to him...no harm no foul."
I agree with you, different symbols mean different things to different people. I know my example is an extremely unlikely one, and certainly a childish one... Still, to say that people don't care how others interpret their symbols is ludicrous. YOU might not personally care, but I assure you the majority of religious folk do. Prove me wrong; walk into a church wearing an inverted cross and see how long you are there before they try to throw you out.
Living With a Nerd
You would be merry, but you're Hebrew ;-)
million lights and it did'nt burn up so far. Myth busted!
It's one thing to believe something that's erroneous. It's another to cast it in a hundred thousand lights and broadcast your ignorance to the entire neighborhood.
Yes, much better to cast it on slashdot and send it all over the internet. Did you ask the guy to make sure that he wasn't aware of the fact that Christ was more probably born in springtime? I as a Christian am more than well aware, as I am sure, are most other Christians, that we don't know the exact birthdate of Jesus, and that the date we choose to celebrate was chosen on purpose in order to overshadow the existing pagan celebration.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
I lived there for 20 years and I never heard it called that, as true as it is. Anyway, it makes complete sense to me that such a garish display of lights (not to mention the big fuck you! to the earth) would be in Kissimmee. The only other places I would expect that out of are Las Vegas and Gatlinburg, TN.
Does this sig remind you of Agatha Christie?
The Christmas traditions are what they are, and everyone is welcome to partake in different traditions if they wish to. Apparently, most people don't. Tell me, how long has it been since Christmas was primarily a pagan celebration? It certainly was at one point, but that point wasn't any time in recent history (to my knowledge). Christmas, as we celebrate it today, is undeniably there because of Christian history. Would we celebrate it if Christianity hadn't come about? Possibly, but not like we celebrate it today, in all likelihood.
Anyway, I think that this whole debate is overthinking the issue a bit. It's a holiday, celebrate it how/if you like. If you don't want to celebrate it, just ignore it... that's what I do with holidays I don't celebrate (pretty much everything except Christmas and Thanksgiving).
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vwOCmJyCZk
has it gotten anybody laid?
Table-ized A.I.
This is in Miami. The yard has tall palm trees in a row behind a diamond link fence. There is a giant spiderweb between two of them so it spans the front of the yard. A huge spider is on it (the stuff that used to scare me in the old serial reruns like Flash Gordon or vintage Batman--not the Adam West stuff but even older)
Under one of the palm trees: a crashed helicopter mockup, broken rotors and all, and a dazed pilot is RIGHT THERE, stuck on the web.
I would drive there at night with my two daughters, and whenever we are about to pass by, I start clutching my daughter's arm, pretending to be really scared.
Of course my daughters roll their eyes. Some nights we scream together. I wonder if the family that lives there gets a Doppler effect of our mock screams. One particular night, I turned to them and said in all seriousness, We've got to save him!
WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
I agree with your last sentence whole-heartedly...but a good debate is fun, especially when stuck at work with nothing to do for a few more hours ;-)
Living With a Nerd
Incidentally, is that message on the door, "Jesus, the reason for the season", common? Not only is it a painful pun, it's wrong too.
True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
You say this because you dismissed my earlier comments on the basis of "strawman" and "red herring".
It is celebrated because it is tradition, and because people love shiny new toys. I'm sure I can't speak for everyone, but I strongly suspect that most people are not thinking of Christ on Christmas eve. They are thinking of Santa, of cookies and milk, of the presents they're going to get (or give) the next morning. They're thinking of a turkey dinner, of being home with family, and yes, of getting a day off from work.
By the way: Strawman. I am not taking tomorrow off.
Can you be sure they wouldn't be celebrating Yule anyway, had Christ never been?
So we've basically killed causation and most of the correlation. What does that leave? I suppose the name is still there...
After all, with only causation, I feel like putting up a sign saying "Sex is the reason for the season." After all, were it not for sex, we wouldn't have people to celebrate Christmas, now would we?
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
You said that Christians SHOULD care about the origins of some SPECIFIC symbols. I wasn't saying no one gets offended by symbols or alternate interpretations, only that there is no reason anyone HAS to be offended by a particular use of a particular symbol.
Not only that, but you had it backward anyway, since you said earlier that it is Christians who should be pissed off because their symbols had some other origins, but in your example here, it is the Christians whose symbol was appropriated by someone else. So your own example was opposite of what you were trying to show.
Come on. You're talking about a religion that uses a device of torture and murder as its primary symbol. If you think we're going to be scared off because some symbols had some origins in paganism, you don't understand Christianity very well (especially the part where Paul told us that meat sacrificed to idols is just fine to eat, which surely has some bearing here, in the worst possible case).
You know, I actually didn't see that saying until I moved to Northern California. Previously, I lived in Mississippi where I never saw it. I have no clue what the origins of it are, but it pisses me off every time I see it.
Does this sig remind you of Agatha Christie?
Oh, man, do you "Do You Know That Christmas isn't really Jesus' Birthday?" neo-pagan hipsters know how boring you've become? You're just two tics on the pedantic-o-meter below the "Why can't Hollywood get computers right in the movies?" pop-culture geeks, which is to say nestled snugly between the crowd who can't get over the fact that the word "hacker" doesn't mean "computer hobbyist" like it did for twenty minutes in 1994 and those who insist upon using "architect" as a verb.
It's Christmas Eve. Hug the person next to you, say something to make a child smile, thank God your free and healthy enough to be idling time away in front of a computer monitor, and pour yourself another eggnog.
Merry Christmas. Lighten up.
Should we ignore and turn away from the teachings and inventions of Archimedes because the same culture that produced him also killed Socrates? Or because he also built tools of war and destruction? And you don't see this as remotely bigoted? Bordering on hate-speech? Why do you link personal faith to the acts done by an orginized body centuries before? I've serious issues with jingoism from a political side -- and I likewise have serious issues with the same attitude taken with faith. From all sides, including yours.
You call 'religion' stupid to you. You don't see that as offensive to those of any faith?
You say "stupid" and I call you ignorant. You say "I don't buy it" and I can understand where you are coming from and we at least can be cordial to each other. When you demean a group of people, it becomes easy to subjugate them. Go down that path, and it's easy to destroy them. "It's ok -- their just jews -- not like you or me", or "It's ok -- their just armenians -- not like you or me".
If you really don't like what the early church did, perhaps you shouldn't be walking down that same path?
I wondered about all that, and I have noticed some very important things happening at the Ligts-O-Rama website. Ever since the Carson Williams lightshow stood the internet on fire for crazy annimated lights, the question was raised. The first big dilema was with TSO who has a record label which is a member of the RIAA... Ohh bad news. At the time not many have heard of TSO.. The online free publicity has been a godsend to TSO, who publicly praised the lightsohow and gave Carson Willmans red carpet treatment to one of their concerts. This put the label and the RIAA in a fix.. Attack or grin and bear it? The TSO invite made an attack a bad move. But what about all the others that are sure to follow....
The first thing to happen in the back room was to get the software and lighting folks on board to avoid legal issues that could damage their business for making avaliable the technology. Who needs a RIO lawsuit?
The outcome is a licensing agreement. The TSO sequences are free to use with the lights-o-rama program. You must buy your own legal copy of the CD to rip it for the show. Lights-o-Rama is in negotiations with other bands and labels for additional material. Unfortunately, most have decided this can be a real money maker.. and for a fee of about $30 for most of the listed tunes, you can get a performance license for your show. Lucy and Linus is one of the approved songs. Just don't do a show without buying the license. Don't do a show without a license. Not all musicians and lables have warmed up to the idea. I would not recommend any shows to any tunes by the artist formaly known as Prince. That could get ugly, especialy if posted on youtube.
Here is a direct link to the fees for the public performance fees including a list of the songs and artists. The list is short to say the least.. A pathetic list of ten total songs to choose from.. Come on guys, lighten up a little on the licensing..
http://store.lightorama.com/sequences.html
Here is a link to the FREE TSO sequences. Remember, use a legal copy of the TSO track, not a limewire download. My head was about to explode on this one. TSO is wonderful for starting the ball rolling on this and dragging along the label and RIAA. But the songs are on RIAA member labels.. Do I buy it to suport TSO or avoid it because it's an RIAA label??? My head is going to explode!
http://www.lightorama.com/FreeTSO.html
This page explains clearly the need to purchase the CD. I have considered doing a show, but have been stopped by the licensing issues.
I am considering doing a Mannheim Steamroller track because they are RIAA safe, but they want a high fee and an entire selection to choose from is only two songs.. The fee includes MP3 downloads of the songs which is nice as you don't have to buy the entire album. I'll stick to static displays or silent annimation for now until things improve.
The truth shall set you free!
You're spouting nonsense. I can only surmise you are bored and trolling. Oh wait, you don't actually understand the difference between "settled"
... if they had any religion at all,and had seen the evil inherent in religious rule as exemplified by such Christian things as the Salem witch trials, and so explicitly excluded such hateful delusions from the government of a free society Also false. Any student of history who bothers to do the research -- as you believe the "vast majority of the founders of the nationAlthough, I am not sure it is possible for you to keep that in mind. You seem quite incapable of rational thought.
He wanted a country freer than the US, not one that was completely free.
Yeah. Would you choose a neurosurgeon who pokes around people's brains in his spare time? I wouldn't.
That's a bit of an assumption.
I actually live a pretty good life. I laugh, I play, I love, I appreciate the beauty in the world -- no less beautiful if I believe it to be accidental than if I believe it to be the design of a Creator.
And I do enjoy a debate, although you may have caught me at a bad time.
Actually, I enjoy what I do, and we have something to present at CES which isn't done yet, so taking today off means I probably lose a weekend. What eventually convinced me to take the day off was a Stephen Hawking book I started reading, an Erlang book that I'm maybe halfway through, and that I can't seem to get this fire started in my wood stove.
I do tend to overanalyze, although, as I said, I enjoy it. But bitter and jealous? Actually, I was mostly playing Devil's Advocate. In reality, people mentioning Jesus does annoy me, but I enjoy the rest of the season -- people dressing up as elves and hugging each other for no reason, lights all over the place, complete waste of power but often beautiful...
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Meh. It's difficult to argue with a straight faulty assertion.
Actually, I'm suggesting that were it not for how it is practiced, it might not still exist at all, and certainly would not be recognizable. For many individuals, I imagine the holiday would not be celebrated at all, were it not for the display of capitalism it has become.
Straw man: Misrepresenting your opponent's position.
So you're right. Just a faulty assumption, almost an ad-hominim, but you were most definitely misrepresenting me, and not my position. I don't see how that helps you any, though.
Yule isn't religious?
And that's a demonstration of how little you're actually willing to get into this debate.
How is it a non-sequitur? That would imply that the conclusion does not follow from the premises, but there are any number of ways that could be in a given argument.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
I could absolutely care less about the fact that pagan religions celebrate whatever they celebrated during the month of what we now call December. I don't care what pagan or other religions have always celebrated around Christmas. What exactly is the point of that statement? I really don't understand what theorem is proven by the fact that other religions have celebrated something on or about the same day. It reminds me of a quote from the movie Forest Gump. "That is a very lovely story, and you tell it so well."
What is the theorem proven by the fact that Christmas has been commercialized by our capitalist society? Christmas is no longer a celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ because Wal-Mart makes a mint from it? That is excellent proof? Since the gigantic megacorps that make millions or billions from Jesus Christ's birth don't call it Christmas anymore, I say that particular proof is crap. They are now making money from the "Holiday Season" so Christmas has been returned to us and we know exactly why we celebrate it.
If someone doesn't care about Christ, Christians, or Christmas, why do they care if I do? I have never seen a group so hell bent (pun intended) on ruining my holiday, my religion, and my celebrations as atheists. The only thing this group appears to firmly believe in is attempting to tear down my faith.
It's Christmas. I love it. I thank God for the gift he sent us in his only begotten son. I thank God for the opportunity to celebrate it on whatever day we choose to celebrate it. We had a fantastic Christmas full of good cheer, thankfulness, giving, good food, good family, good friends, and worship. If someone else didn't then I am sorry for them. If a person doesn't believe then we pray for them. If you don't believe and don't care, then be quiet. This "holiday" is not about you nor is it for you. Wal-Mart has a "Holiday Celebration" for you instead. Take it or leave it, but stop whining about it.
Incidentally, St. Nicholas was the patron saint of anonymous giving. That is what Santa Claus represents. That's what the whole tradition represents to me. We give to the needy. We give to the Churches who use the money to help the needy. We buy nice things for our children and put it under the tree. They get gifts from St. Nicholas a.k.a. Santa Claus and the folks who helped with that process are emulating the real St. Nicholas in not expecting thanks or gratitude for a kind gesture. Jesus said that a man who marches through the streets loudly proclaiming his tithes are paid has already received his reward. The giving of gifts by Christians is in the tradition of Christ's teachings. Our children may not be needy, but we give to them in the same spirit in the hopes that they will do the same when they are adults. That is: giving to the needy, worshiping God, Jesus Christ our Lord, the Holy Spirit, and passing this tradition along to their own children. Matthew 6:1-4
But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. I'm not inviting posters to attack my faith. I am not attempting to insult anyone of another faith. I believe that most followers of other faiths don't care what I believe and aren't bothered by the fact that I do believe. What I am trying to say is that it IS a Christian holiday and WE DO know why we celebrate it. It is NOT because we all go broke and it DOESN'T MATTER what flipping day of what flipping month we do it.
Merry Christmas and may God bless all of us. I hope that your new year is even better than your last.
A little misunderstanding? Galileo and the Pope had a little misunderstanding...
Straw man: Misrepresenting your opponent's position.
So you're right. Just a faulty assumption, almost an ad-hominim, but you were most definitely misrepresenting me, and not my position.
No. I was merely using "you" as a general example. Whether you personally have the day off could not matter less to me, or anyone else reading the discussion. It is entirely unimportant to the discussion. It does not fall under any category of logical fallacy, certainly not straw man, nor ad hominem. That you are harping on it, however, is a red herring fallacy. How many other non-religious (e.g., Christmas), non-historical (e.g., D-Day) holidays are celebrated by billions of people? Yule isn't religious? Correct, it isn't. And even if you want to superimpose "religion" onto it somehow, how would that help your case, seeing as how there are no significant peoples, cultures, or societies who belong to that "religion" today, such that it would be celebrated by millions, let alone billions, of people? That is, of course, a non sequitur. When you look up "straw man" feel free to look up that one, too. And that's a demonstration of how little you're actually willing to get into this debate. Ad hominem. How is it a non-sequitur? That would imply that the conclusion does not follow from the premises, but there are any number of ways that could be in a given argument. How is it NOT a non-sequitur? You said, After all, with only causation, I feel like putting up a sign saying "Sex is the reason for the season." After all, were it not for sex, we wouldn't have people to celebrate Christmas, now would we? But that is meaningless. It does not address the unique part that Christianity plays in Christmas, and pretends that any cause is equal to any other.Additionally, in a separate post, you wrote: Who cares? Why not [make denigrate religious people]? Making fun of people is cool and fun, and religious people don't have any good, rational arguments for the things they believe. So why not challenge them on it? So I'm calling you on your bullshit: you did, in fact, say such a thing. You just hoped I didn't see it.
I have no problem explaining the logical reasons for theism. I've done so many times. However, I do have a problem indulging trolls. That puts me in a bit of a bind, and I usually opt for not-indulging.
Unless, of course, what I said was self-evident, in which case I'd just be repeating myself.
But I'm not sure if that applies, as I don't feel like digging back to the original point.
If it was called "Yule", would Christmas still exist?
If so, then Jesus is not the reason for the season. If not, then point goes to me.
Other than chocolate bunnies, and chocolate eggs, and Easter egg-making kits, and the Easter bunny at the mall, and Easter's day sale, and...
Let's take a holiday which has pretty much no capitalism associated with it -- Sukkot. I bet you've never heard of it. (I cheated; it's a Jewish holiday, but you have heard of Passover, where we buy Matzoh and all kinds of things Kosher for Passover, and of course there's Hannukah, which has become a "me too" to Christmas.)
Except, oh, everyone celebrating "Christmas".
Yep.
It was actually using an extreme to illustrate a point: I am not arguing that any cause is equal to any other. I am trying to illustrate that one cause is not so important as to become the reason, when, especially in the case of Christmas, there are at least a few others that fit just as well.
So, perhaps a better example would be, oh, Yule.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
(If you think that what I just said sounds reasonable, then you are beyond reason.)
How does the existence of the solstice warrant a national holiday?
Because that's the way Macy's said it should be. Evidently you have no idea of the process of morphing one thing into another, and are unwilling to follow the money... though you will die chasing after it. The solstice has past, Happy Equinox Day! I believe you call it "Easter". Another cultist holiday of national proportions. And let's not forget "Christmas in July" for the summer solstice, or is it the all star break? Religion and sports... sprouting from the same root? Both are big business. Feel free to leave the lights up.
What?
Because that's the way Macy's said it should be. Fine, but how are you going to get billions of people worldwide to care about that? Valentine's Day has been a tough sell enough, and it's had some success moving into Europe and Asia only because of its tie to romantic love. The solstice has nothing of the sort going for it. So: no.
You need to learn about marketing. Everything has to have a "hook." It's the religion that makes Easter and Christmas popular, period.
Nice try.
Well, not really. It was actually a very poor try.
You lied, I caught you on it, and now you're pissed. Great. Fuck you. Shrug. Next time try to match wits with someone who is more your speed. Like a snail.
Sup, pudgie?
No matter how popular it is, your religion is still a cult, with its idol worship, demagoguery, and other baggage. It's a for profit business. And being the great, discriminating business person you are, you would be amongst the first to call for Christ's death if he was here today. You and your little plastic statues would also be amongst the first he would kick off the steps to the temple. How far up the pyramid do you think you are?
It's the religion that makes Easter and Christmas popular...
It's the children that makes Easter and Christmas popular. It is for them that they exist at all. Well, actually it's for the people that sell to the children. Marketing genius.
The solstice has nothing of the sort going for it.
Okay Sure Whatever you say
Oh, and thanks for the marketing tip. I shall be a billionaire tomorrow if I follow your advice. NOT!
You better watch out
You better not cry
Better not pout
I'm telling you why...
What?
I don't believe I have ever called for the death of anyone, other than mass murderers.
And very selective(discriminating?) you are in that department! And you better stay that way if you don't want to be placed under arrest.
What?
I wonder how hard you have to work to produce such meaningless posts. Does it come naturally?
Does it come naturally?
No. Unlike you, I have to work at it pretty hard. I am a natural blonde, though. Does that count? Looks like I hit a nerve...
What?
Ditto. You don't see the Yule culture in Christmas?
No, I think what you said was pointless and offtopic.
What people currently care about is the only basis for "reason for the season"? I guess that circles back to the capitalism point. People currently care about getting and giving presents.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Not at all. Our last discussion provides plenty of examples, but here it is off topic. But you being such a material girl proves that you are as phony as a three dollar bill when it comes to the subject of religion.
What?
Of you utterly failing to provide any examples to back up your claims, yes.
Not gonna do it here. Feel free to join the party. Or are ya chicken?
What?
Ha, awesome, and you even lied about me in that other discussion. You're a riot.
Na-Ga-Da. Wouldn't be prudent. You know where to make to make your case. Let's take it over there. I guess you are chicken :-)
You can't handle the truth
What?
Shrug. I keep things where they start, where they therefore belong. No amount of taunting can get me to change that.
I wonder what makes you afraid to keep it where it belongs.
I keep things where they start...
It doesn't belong here. Eh, part of you problem, I guess The subject here is Christmas and lights. The other thread is much more appropriate, especially in your case since it's about you. I'm sure we can pick it up again later. Thanks for making my case. Toodles...
What?
Which is, of course, par for the course for you.
Hmm, let's see... I state that we have a right to uncontaminated air and water, and to protect that right by whatever means necessary. You call it "collectivism" and an infringement of your individual right to do what you please with said resources with an attempt to cloud what you're really saying by calling it "Orwellian doublespeak". Most people might fall for such nonsense. A reasonable person would see it for what it is. A claim that your "rights" are more valid than that of others. Well, I have to admit. You got the big guns on your side... for now. You want the state to protect your personal profit at the expense of others. You have been given every right to sicken us with your effluence.
Yeah, I can see why you're scared to enter the 'hood. Wouldn't wanna get hit by any drive-bys now, would ya? A guy like you will get chewed up(plucked in your case) pretty bad. See, we don't need to build walls around us to exclude people that disagree, the way you do. You need to surround yourself with your little yes-"men" to make you feel secure because the rest will bury you.
Moving it elsewhere is dishonest.
Oh, that's rich! I definitely get a chuckle out of your fearful rationalizations. Enjoy your kool-aid. *cluck cluck cluck*
What?
Not that it changes anything, though, since I never said that it is OK for people to destroy natural resources, nor that it is wrong for government to be used to prevent their destruction. I only stated the fact that you were being stupid. You call it
Is that shovel getting heavy? You've dug your hole so deeply
*sigh* I'm tired. Have a good night
What?
*sigh* I'm tired. Have a good night Wow you're stupid and/or dishonest. If you bothered to quote what I actually wrote in the last post, you would see that I was saying that this is not MERELY what you said; not that you didn't use those words, but -- in my own words, that you ignored -- that you did not "just mean a right to clean air and water, and you never limited it to just those two things."
If I say to someone, "you're a fucked-up little man," and he hits me, and when telling the cops about it later I say "I called him a man and he hit me," that's called lying by omission. It's what you're doing when you describe your position in the previous discussion as being about air and water.
And then you link to a comment and resulting discussion proving that I am right.
Thanks, I guess.
And you've still never come up with a single example of me putting government over the rights of individuals (even though you provided examples where YOU do that), nor any of your other false claims: that I belong to a cult (by any pejorative sense of the word), that my religion engages in idol worship or demagoguery or is a for-profit business, that I am a businessperson, that I would call for Christ's death, that I have plastic statues(?), that I ever claimed I have a right to pollute your air or water, that I actually DO pollute, that I am scared to enter "the 'hood," that I need -- or have -- walls to exclude anyone.
I am sure there are other allegations you've made about me you can't back up. I don't think there are any you CAN back up.
No examples. Anywhere. None.
You're a liar.
If I say to someone, "you're a fucked-up little man,"...
If you said it while looking at the mirror, it would be a good sign of recognition. You will have completed your first step. It's okay, pudgie. We're here to help. Let it out. Now, seriously, I have to go take my nap. Catch ya on the flipside.
What?
Nope, we hadn't established that. (And round and round we go.
Let's look at that statement again:
I don't dispute that at all. I also don't see the relevance of redefining it that way. If I didn't already acknowledge the birth of Christ as the "reason for the season", why would I suddenly acknowledge it as the "reason why people celebrate"?
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
???
h
What?
religious people DON'T have any good, rational arguments for things they believe. that's a pillar of philosophical significance that is demonstrated in introductory philosophy courses across this planet. it's a question that has been asked by outcast 12 year olds for who knows how long. science is inherently modular in nature due to the recognition of the irresolute nature of information. one of the largest problems confronting us in quantum mechanics is related to the nature of the requirements for making observations of matter on that sub-planck scale. if we cannot establish the integrity of reality at the very smallest level of the universe we can observe, how can we establish it at the idea of the very greatest (by that i mean a 'supreme' being, or personified uncased first cause, if you will).
don't get the wrong idea. i'm not assuming the validity of the premise of my argument (that you can't logically believe in religion based on the illogical nature of belief) by citing quantum mechanics, but am simply giving what i consider to be a really obvious example of the extremely biased nature of our perceptive and cognitive reaches. we are not capable of knowing that we know anything, and my definition of 'know' in this case would be to have a proper understanding of some aspect of reality. we CAN know, we just can't know we know. we can know we know, but we just can't know we know we know. it's an infinite regress, just like the assumption of a supreme being bringing up the question of something so intricate as a supreme being bearing the necessity for a creator in turn!
there are a host of actual reasons that theology is not philosophical, but there aren't any reasons i know of that theology is. we can apply the principles of philosophy (logic, reason, argumentation, etc.) to religion, but we cannot consider belief in religion itself philosophically sound because the very act of 'belief' is irrational on a philosophical level. like i stated before, belief is a huge logical black hole, and i'm not going to even begin to want to explain that to you. search for 'logical fallacies' on your web-ruining search engine of choice. i'm sure a smart guy like you can figure it out yourself just by educating yourself on logical fallacies. you really don't have to read about what anybody thinks about it to reason it out for yourself, so long as you allow yourself the freedom to actually educate yourself on the topic. you know, by suspending belief.
oh, and please don't respond with 'but you believe what you said,' or something equally passe. i don't believe what i said, i'm just working within the abstract confines of philosophy, and i recognize that there's a good chance i'm wrong. i'm totally willing to update my understanding of religion and belief and all of those things. information exists, and i like the principles that allow for information to be propagated for mass pondering. it's sort of like distributed computing: why limit the scope of dissemination of information? 6 billion minds are certainly incalculably (to me, at least) more powerful than any single mind. i don't simply trust in individual ingenuity to provoke human progress, but the collective digression, regression and progression of individuals and the spread of those actions to people of utterly different viewpoints and observational bases for alternative computation.
i'm just arguing for the sake of argument (it's great fun, and i wish more people would do it. practice may not make perfect, but it certainly helps you to improve, and i know there are a lot of complaints about people's abilities to reason out complex arguments), and i think you've done a lot of assuming in your responses to kayditty, which is really what prompted me to reply to you. it's funny how people who proclaim belief in some deity tend to make really baseless assumptions about the motivations of others.
religious people DON'T have any good, rational arguments for things they believe.
Only if ALL belief in EVERYTHING -- including science, and including the belief that all belief is irrational -- is irrational, which is, itself, irrational.
that's a pillar of philosophical significance that is demonstrated in introductory philosophy courses across this planet.
Utterly false. Even if you believe that all belief is irrational, it doesn't make it true that introductory philosophy courses teach the same thing. They don't. What they do teach is that our faculties are limited, and that there are relatively few things we can know, but that's not the same as saying belief is irrational.
we are not capable of knowing that we know anything
That's simply not true, as Descartes demonstrated. Cogito ergo sum, and all. Further, we know quite well that 2+2=4, and we know we know it. It is not possible that I do not exist (well, from my perspective anyway; for you, it is only not possible that YOU don't exist), and it is further not possible that 2+2 does not equal 4.
there are a host of actual reasons that theology is not philosophical
No, in fact, there are zero. Not a single one exists. But now you are crossing your streams. Above you appeared to be saying that religion is just like everything else, that we can't know it because we can't know anything. Now you appear to be saying it is somehow unique. That's false.
we cannot consider belief in religion itself philosophically sound because the very act of 'belief' is irrational on a philosophical level
No, it is not. Part of the problem is that you clearly do not understand what belief is. The act of believing in a religious idea is not philosophically different from the act of believing that if you drop a ball, it will be pulled toward the greater mass of the planet below. The act of believing is merely the end of the process of being convinced that something is true. That is it, and nothing more or less. A belief in God at the philosophical level is no different from a belief in gravity. It's only the methods used to be so convinced that are different, but they are not different by as much as most people think, because they have the same basic root.
The only reason we believe in gravity is because we believe in a purely philosophical idea that we popularly refer to as the scientific method. We didn't believe in the scientific method because of any scientific evidence (obviously). We believed it in because we thought about it, and it seemed to make sense, and then we saw how it was applied in our life, and that it worked, and so we quite rationally came to believe in the scientific method, and therefore in science conducted under that method. And it is the exact same process that leads some people to believe in God. Belief is not irrational, belief in God is not irrational, and the process of believing in God is no different from the process of believing in anything else.
And of course, none of this is any different from believing that our ability to "know" is severely limited, which is all you've based this on. You say "don't respond with 'but you believe what you said,'" but you are stating as fundamental ideas things that cannot be believed any more than the things you say can't be believed. If you don't want people to use an argument against you, you can't merely dismiss it by calling it "passe," you have to actually frame what you say so that it is not subject to that argument.
Now, you could believe, as Lawrence Livermore did, that since we cannot prove most things exist (he wasn't so foolish as to say we can't prove anything, because he had read Descartes), he therefore should not believe in anything, and only practically believe in things he could sense at the moment. So the bottom of his desk didn't exist unless he put his hand under there and felt it.
You could think, of course, that you ca
Why do you deny what you did? Why are you lying? Your faith is that you know what my intentions are. No, it's not. And your belief is that I'm not worthy of your time No, it's not. You are the worst troll ever No, sorry, you win that award. Your very first post to me was a troll, and I quoted you from another comment admitting that you were trolling, and I caught you on it immediately. Hard to imagine a worse trolling job than that. Do you HONESTLY think you've "got me trapped" I didn't trap you, you trapped yourself. I simply saw the comment where you admitted what you were doing, and linked to it. I don't claim to have done anything great. You're just really terrible. Can I get an answer to my original question now? I don't know what you think has changed. Your only interest is to ridicule me, as you stated initially, and you've only proven that more with each post. There's no reason why I would bother answering your question, because your intent is not have a discussion about whatever beliefs I may have, but merely to ridicule. Maybe I got lazy, but what the hell is YOUR excuse? Wow. You think I need an excuse to respond to you? And you call me insecure?!
i'm not saying believing in science is true and believing in religion is not. i'm saying believing in anything is philosophically unsound. i don't believe that believing in things is philosophically unsound, philsophy is an abstract process that offers us abstract boundaries in which we can state that with logical surity. you don't have to believe in god or believe in logic or believe in philosophy to make statements about god or philosophy or logic, but philosophy (unlike religion) gives us standards for judging the worth of arguments that have been refined over thousands of years of thinking and debate (both internal and external). religion gives us the refinement and precision of logical fallacies crafted to appear logically sound, and even uses sound philosophy to contribute to an appearance of logical credibility. i think all of this stuff is pretty obvious. i really don't want to have a conversation with you about it anymore. seeya.
Fine, you don't want to have a conversation. But integrity demands you back up your unsolicited and repeated claim, and you've not done it.
you got me, i'm a sucker for responding. and i used to do the whole quote by quote thing, too. i'm going to pass on that now, though. i'll try to address them in order, though, because i'm so great. you say i'm wrong (and later talk about maintaining integrity, or something. i'll climb that hill when i get there), but offer no evidence or argument to the contrary. that sounds sort of like uh, something...i can't really think of what it's called. i heard about it a long time ago on a coke commercial. relugia?? that's not right. religation?????? RELIGIOINZZZ!!!!111 i am so clever! like i said before, i don't want to get into a conversation about the basics of the philosophical or scientific methods. there are better sources for that information than me (as i'm pretty sure you're convincend, anyway). i'm certainly not capable of convincing you, so all that i can do is suggest you read more (i think it's needless to say in most instances, but for you'll i'll point out that i always take my suggestions, as well, and will continue to study up on the subject. i'll be the first to feel stupid if i find out just how wrong i was [have fun proving it. signed, kafka]). i'm not convinced of it, i'm trying to construct an argument based on logic. i'm not espousing my beliefs, i'm trying to refine my argumentation through practice. i'm not here to change your mind. that's not my goal. if i do, that's your fault for not having the same ideas as me in the first place. an appeal to authority isn't a logical fallacy? the idea that a god none of us can possibly prove the existence of dictates to them how to regulate the activities of men on earth? come on, that one is on the FIRST PAGE of the bible. i may be a poor thinker. i don't know. that's a pretty mean thing to say to me. :(
i guess it's kind of obvious that i'm not refusing to back anything up. i just don't understand how somebody who is so obviously a troll is actually in a position of some form of authority on this site (or does that slashdot.org next to your name mean you paid for the premium account?). i just don't want to talk to you about it any more, but i feel compelled to because i like to argue and you're the only person up right now who wants to at least provoke me into saying things. once again, don't get the wrong idea (despite seeing how poorly this statement has worked with you before). i'm not replying because you called me out on saying i don't want to, i'm replying because that's what i do. i'm a replier to things people say to me. i can't help it.
i don't think integrity demands anything from me. i don't have to back up anything i say, and i think it's a pretty fortunate luxury for you that i'm actually giving you the time of...night. i normally make a conscious effort to avoid posting on slashdot (one glance at the comments is usually enough to reinforce this), but since you have some stake in the site i'm giving you special treatment, because that's what authorities like god and the president of the united states and the pope deserve and the administrators of a web site named slashdot deserve. or whatever.
i suppose i'll go ahead and fulfill godwin's law here just to point at that the little slashdot next to your name sure does remind me a lot of a swastika arm band. it's slightly terrifying. slightly. do you know any blackhat seo hackers i can hire to get my site to the third page of google for hacker tips?? it's actually a collection of mega man pictures, but i know how people like to hack. you call kayditty a liar, and i'm sure kayditty is more than capable of speaking for kayditty's very own self, but since when is an observation an attack? just because you're sensitive about the subject doesn't mean you're being attacked. you're not a victim. this is a conversation, and people are speaking freely. get a grip. you really are a troll, and normally i'm just like 'eh' and try not to respond (like i said in another reply to you), but dammit if you aren't good at being a troll, because i feel so damned damningly dammit damn damn damn compelled to respond. you bug me, congratulations. i really hope you feel good about yourself, and that is not sarcasm. i want you to feel good. and you talk of excuses, but who needs excuses to respond when 'integrity demands' rational response filled with evidence and intricate statements well backed by reason and explanation such as yours? (that one is sarcasm)
That you are defending kayditty, who by any standard was lying and trolling, is odd. It's not like it makes you look good, or backs up the impression that you are trying to create that you are rational.
And in this case, it holds: it is not possible for me to prove that religious belief is not irrational, that it commits no logical fallacies. The only rational course of action to push this discussion forward is for you to make your argument, and for me to show you where your argument is incorrect. like i said before, i don't want to get into a conversation about the basics of the philosophical or scientific methods. I couldn't care less. Back up your claim, that's all. i'm trying to construct an argument based on logic. Then present the logic. You've not done so, you've merely offered assertions. an appeal to authority isn't a logical fallacy? the idea that a god none of us can possibly prove the existence of dictates to them how to regulate the activities of men on earth? come on, that one is on the FIRST PAGE of the bible. No, you're way off base on multiple levels. I am not going to go through it all, though, because, as I noted before, you are once again conflating "knowledge" with "belief." If I said, "we absolutely know as a matter of hard fact that the Christianity is true because the Bible said so," that is a logical fallacy. But merely saying I believe it to be true because the Bible said so, there's nothing fallacious about that at all. There is no such thing as a logically fallacious belief, except that belief which can be proven false with logic.
It's really funny to me that you were acting in your posts as though you have some higher level of understanding than me, and yet you get this fundamental thing wrong.
You also don't even really understand the appeal to authority fallacy anyway, except on a shallow level. The fallacy is only holding when the authority is actually capable of error; you'd have to establish that the authority in question is capable of error, even if the fallacy DID apply (which as proven above, it doesn't).
And you also don't understand the Bible, because the Bible doesn't say "believe the Bible because the Bible says so." It goes far deeper than that, first nurturing a belief in God from sources entirely external to the Bible: general revelation of nature, and special revelation in the human mind. The Bible really represents a logical dissertation: X is true, and Y follows from X, an Z from Y. Not "believe Z because I said so."
And further, how would this apply to MY religious belief? Let's assume the incorrect: that the the Bible commits the appeal to authority fallacy. Fine. Now what's that got to do with me? It is not fallacious for me to be a Christian while not accepting that fallacy. You were talking about religious belief, not the Bible specifically.
Again, you're just way off base here. You really don't understand what you're talking about. i guess it's kind of obvious that i'm not refusing to back anything up. Well, you finally attempted to back it up. And you failed miserably. Care to try again? i don't think integrity demands anything from me. i don't have to back up anything i say Yes, if you choose to be dishonest, you don't have to back up the claims you make.
who are you? juvenile? stop telling me to back things up. you are not the keeper of proper argumentation, and you're certainly not going to dictate how or why i express myself. what i'm saying is a self-evident truth. you cannot prove the existence of god, and as such believing in something you cannot have evidence for or even argue logically is ILLOGICAL. you cannot argue for the existence of a god logically without making unverifiable claims. there is a HUGE amount of documented thinking about this subject. you can pick up any given richard dawkins book to see how somebody who's actually intelligent would approach the subject. you talk about me acting like i have a 'higher level of understanding' than you, but i really don't know where this is coming from. i'm pretty self-deprecating in general. you seem to paint a lot of straw men in your responses to me.
unless you're willing to argue that pascal's wager is some deep and meaningful insight into the religious mind, i really don't have anything else to add the the conversation. i cited dawkins, because i think he's the leading authority (at least in presence) on opening up the fallacious nature of religion (personal opinions of his aside). if you don't want to read what dawkins has to say, you surely don't want to read what i have to say. if you've already read what dawkins has to say, there is absolutely nothing i can say to contribute to this conversation. you keep demanding i 'back up' my 'claim,' but it's not 'my' claim, and a hardcore web 2.0 programmer of the future such as yourself should understand that it's bad enough i'm wasting my time talking to you this much, let alone the time i would waste confusing the issue further by applying my limited capacity for reason to subjects that have already been thoroughly discussed by men of greater magnitudes of intelligence than myself.
as i've said before, and you've chosen to ignore: the information is freely available in copious amounts. i'm just curious, though, have you asked god to back up his claims lately?
who are you? juvenile? stop telling me to back things up.
Shrug. An adult wouldn't need to be told to back things up.
you are not the keeper of proper argumentation
And you are not the keeper of "philosophical soundness." Yet your language was no more less assertive than mine, so you're being a hypocrite by complaining about me doing no more than what you did.
what i'm saying is a self-evident truth
No, in fact, it is not. You are, actually, you are contradicting yourself: you said that religious belief does not match up against philosophical standards, which means that it is not self-evident, but, rather, demonstrable.
you cannot prove the existence of god
Straw man logical fallacy: I never said I could.
and as such believing in something you cannot have evidence for or even argue logically is ILLOGICAL
Now you are committing several logical fallacies here. The first is the "shifting the goalposts" fallacy, by changing from talking about "proof" to "evidence." They are two very different things. If I concede I cannot prove the existence of God, that does not imply there is no evidence for it (and, in fact, there is) or that it cannot be argued logically (and, in fact, I can).
You are also -- again -- committing the equivocation fallacy by treating knowledge and belief as the same thing. They are not.
So your entire argument there is fallacious.
you cannot argue for the existence of a god logically without making unverifiable claims
False.
there is a HUGE amount of documented thinking about this subject
All of it incorrect.
you can pick up any given richard dawkins book to see how somebody who's actually intelligent would approach the subject.
Yes, I could. He is an extremely poor thinker on the subject. He doesn't know even basic fundamentals about religion and barely understands the basics of philosophy. He is a scientist, not a philosopher.
you talk about me acting like i have a 'higher level of understanding' than you, but i really don't know where this is coming from
That's stupid of you to say. How about the several times you talked about how you thought I need to read to understand what you were saying, and that you didn't want to explain principles to me, as though I needed it? That is precisely what you did.
unless you're willing to argue that pascal's wager is some deep and meaningful insight into the religious mind, i really don't have anything else to add the the conversation
So you won't back up any of your claims? I mean, I know you tried, citing the appeal to authority, but I blew that out of the water, so you're left with nothing right now. Not a single thing to back up your claims, except assertion (which, interestingly, is precisely what you attack religious belief for!).
i cited dawkins, because i think he's the leading authority (at least in presence) on opening up the fallacious nature of religion
It's telling that you think so. Real philosophers -- on all sides of the issue -- are embarassed by Dawkins' hamhanded attempts to attack religious belief.
if you don't want to read what dawkins has to say, you surely don't want to read what i have to say
Nope, unacceptable. That's a dishonest copout. You back up your claim. If you want to cite Dawkins, fine, but point to a specific argument he makes, don't just handwave at his book. Back it up. Back it up. Back it up. Again, feel free to consider me the juvenile, but the adult doesn't need to be told this basic concept.
you keep demanding i 'back up' my 'claim'
Yes, and I will continue to, as long as you refuse to.
but it's not 'my' claim
Please do not lie, it is unbecoming. You made the claim over and over, many times, and even repeated t
so by your logic i'm not an adult? geez, your statements are completely vacuous. seeya4eel!
The reason why is obvious: you can't. But that is not surprising: you said things that make absolutely no logical sense (belief is irrational; belief is irrational is self-evident; it is impossible to know that we know anything; that all introductory philosophy courses teach such nonsense; etc.) and then cited a scientist with no serious standing in the philosophical community, who has been ridiculed by people of all stripes as ignorant of how to "do" good philosophy, as your expert (without actually providing any of his arguments anyway).
I hope you learned your lesson: next time, know what you are talking about when you make sweeping assertions to strangers, or you just might end up looking like an idiot.