Slashdot Mirror
Star Wars Characters Astrological Readings
Nathaniel R. Merriam
sent us an amusing bit about the astrological signs
of various star wars charachters.
If you were disappointed by the lack-of-trailer yesterday,
this might tide you over until Wing Commander opens. Its
always nice to know that Chewie is a Taurus and Yoda is a
Sagitarius, although I'm not exactly sure why exactly.
In a galaxy far far away, far away from the constellations I should imagine.
-kojak
That is odd, since they are TWINS.
What a way to start the day....
Why couldn't I share signs with Vader?
charachters -> characters
star wars -> Star Wars
Sagitarius -> Sagittarius
"I'm not exactly sure why exactly." is a little redundant.
What a way to run a website.
I am Aquarius (Darth Vader), my younger sister
;-)
is Aries (The Emperor), my mom is Libra(Obi Wan),
my dad is Leo (Princess Leia).
I have to admit, it makes me smile.
We should make a poll out of this, see
how many SlashDot readers are on the
dark side
Astrology is ignorant in nature, and for a person seeking higher guidance in life it's sad to see them choose such poor counterfiet. I'm glad this article applies it to ficticious characters to whom it will cause no hurt.
(here's an interesting poll:
[ ] I read my horoscope today
[ ] I read a SINGLE bible verse today
Lighten up, compared to that other thread Katz
started this post is a godsend.
Its funny, laugh.
[] I read slashdot instead bible/horoscope
Cool!
Now, what a piece of crap.
Do any of the Star Wars characters courier warez?
With quantum mechanics, chaos theory, etc. in mind, horoscopes are just as valid as anything else. It's all just random fluctuations in spacetime anyway. Try proving that 1 == 1 without using any preconceived ideas. We could all be insects in some wierd experiment equiped with ultra powerful undetectable VR gear that makes us think we are human, the world is round, and that 1 == 1.
If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around, does it make sound waves? What if their is no such thing as sound waves, but instead tiny, undetectable gremlins pop up everytime we try to measure sound waves, and the gremlins create the illusion. It may sound ubsurd, but try and disprove it. You can't. Whatever you think of to disprove it, I'm sure a little undetectable gremlin can be thrown in to screw up your theory. Since it can't be proven or disproven either way, it requires faith to accept it, and it requires faith to deny it. Either way you can't be certain what is true, just like religion, astrology, and even science.
use the force luke, and all will be revealed.
Isn't all this Star Wars hype just playing into the hands of a huge corporate money machine?
how people can be this ignorant?
/. account) Katz-Hyman
I am amazed at how many people out there just don't know the first thing when it comes to scientific principles. I don't mean like law of Gravitaion or maxwell's equations, but about HOW science is developed and the scientific method and why it works.
Moshe (I don't need a
Department of Physics
Case Western Reserve University
I'm the same sign as the ultimate Playa, Lando.
Hell, it is even my Birthday today. I turn 21 and get to test my "ladie's man" skillz. Yeah, I like that.
Small, cute & fuzzy :)
I know where you are going with this, but you've got it all garbled. Yes, you're very clever and non-conformist coming up with all this--I did the same when *I* was a freshman.
Nonetheless, there are certain measurements everyone agrees on (rightly or wrongly) For instance, "I am hearing a sound". By these common measurements science can be compared non-science.
Example:
"My god will make everyone in this room hear a sound." Did everyone hear a sound?
"My scientific device will make everyone in this room hear a sound." Did everyone hear a sound?
If there is a different answer to these two questions, then one method is more successful in a common context than the other. It matters not whether this context is real or illusory in the philosophical sense.
jeez, I guess some geek stereotypes are true.
He's representing the Linux community. MY spelling and grammar isn't this bad and I don't want to get painted with the same brush.
Did everyone hear a sound?
...demonstrating again the nature of knowledge as a social construction.
Heh. I thought it was freakin' hilarious!
"AQUARIUS: Darth Vader
;-)
Vader can be cruel, and torments people who
disagree with him. Yet, deep down he has a
peace-loving, friendly side. He has a knack
for inflicting pain on people and always uses
his intellect during battle."
Is it just me, or does this description tend to lend credence to the rumor that Vader turned to the Dark Side only after working in the area of Tech Support?
Customer: "Hi, I can't get my InfoLightSaber working. It worked fine yesterday, and I haven't changed it at all!"
Vader: "Well, let's see if we can get it working." (begin 45 minutes of attempted debugging of the problem)
Customer: "Oh...by the way. My cousin dropped it in his pool last night. Do you suppose that could have anything to do with it?"
Vader: *snapppp!* "Aauuggghhhhh!!!!" *hack* *slash* *kill*
I think the Dark Side's gotten a bad rap, and I for one am glad to find that Vader and I share the same sign.
My father, brother and I am nice C3POs (Virgo), only my mother dares to deviate (a Leo). Oh, my parents' cat is also a Virgo, assuming the Zodiac applies to them as well.
:)
Definitely a Rebel Alliance family
Aw Christ! Who fucking cares? Astrology? Why don't we all get together and do some phrenology and iridology while we're at it?
here's an interesting poll:
[ ] I read my horoscope today
[ ] I read a SINGLE bible verse today
How about:
[ ] I think the paranormal is for suckers
[ ] All religion is bunk
I thought astrology was accurate and to be taken seriously! I am thankful there are people like you who are too smart to be duped by scams like this!
Rob Malda wrote:
I'm not exactly sure why exactly
With quantum mechanics, chaos theory, etc. in mind, horoscopes are just as valid as anything else.
Except Bell's thoerem has been demonstrated and chaos theory is completely observable. Validity is not in the mind of the observer, even if the observer is a mental defect.
Since it can't be proven or disproven either way, it requires faith to accept it, and it requires faith to deny it. Either way you can't be certain what is true, just like religion, astrology, and even science.
Logical fallacy. Use Occam's Razor.
Decide what is most probable and that is the likely truth. Sure I can't prove sound waves exist, but since there is overwhelming evidence in favor of sound waves and NO evidence in favor of gremlins it's pretty stupid to believe the theory with NO evidence is correct.
Isn't all this Star Wars hype just playing into the hands of a huge corporate money machine?
Ya think? (sarcasm)
"There's a sucker born every minute". Of course the population of the world during HC Fields time was about a billion, today it's over 6 billion so it's been reduced to 10 seconds.
Easy... They're both cusps. A friend of mine was born a Gemini, but if she'd decided to stay in the womb for five minutes more, she'd have been a Cancer.
;>
Of course, this means that Leia will want to protect her feelings more than the average Leo, and Luke is more prone to lead than the average Cancer. If you watch the movies carefully, you see this happens.
There's also the little tidbit that, at the range they probably were from the constellations, it's only about a 3 minute period under which the residents of any particular planet are under *any* of our constellations. I wonder if the Ewoks think it odd that noone in their race gives birth outside a 15 second period that occurs once a year...
What if your observations are false in the first place?
The overwhelming evidence in favor of sound waves and no evidence of gremlins just hammers my point across further. The evidence is created by the gremlins, which themselves are unobservable. The more evidence you bring across, the more of it can be said to have been created by the gremlins in the first place.
Deciding what is most probable requires using your brain, which in itself could be under the influence of those pesky gremlins.
You can always decide what is the likely truth, but you can never know what is the truth.
I'm a devote athiest, but I cannot, without a doubt, say that their is no god. Just like I cannot say, without a doubt, that little invisible gremlins don't control the universe, or that astrological forces aren't real.
Do you think "charachters" was supposed to be a joke?
how people can be this ignorant?
/. account) Katz-Hyman
I am amazed at how many people out there just don't know the first thing when it comes to scientific principles. I don't mean like law of Gravitaion or maxwell's equations, but about HOW science is developed and the scientific method and why it works.
Moshe (I don't need a
Department of Physics
Case Western Reserve University
The scientific method is based on observation. My point is you can't trust observation to be the truth. It can be the likely truth, but you can never know if it's the absolute truth. What if in our universe 1 != 1. It doesn't even make sense and you probably can't even comprehend it. But it could very well be the absolute truth, but some unknown, unobservable force distorts our observations and we believe that 1 == 1.
Are you saying that if I was the last person (even the last living being) on Earth (or in the Universe) I couldn't have knowledge?
yeah yeah yeah, absolute knowledge of the "real" world is impossible.
If you are crossing the road and you perceive a bus about to hit you, are you going to leap aside? If so, you are obviously willing to accept the input of your senses. To then turn around and do otherwise during a "tree falling in the forest" experiment would be illogical.
Well, by that logic, their is a God, since 94% of the worlds population believes in some form of higher diety.
Also by that logic, astrology, for the most part, is a real phenomena that affects us.
College administrators are talking together.
Admin 1: I like the physics department, all they really need is chalk and erasers.
Admin 2: I prefer the philosophy department, all they need is chalk.
I agree it doesn't really matter either way. Even if their are little unobservable gremlins, it doesn't matter, since they are unobservable. Even if we are in an illusionary context, we are all in it, so relatively it's a mute point.
You don't get it. The point is that if the gremlins are truly unobservable, then they are irrelevant. We obviously cannot explain phenomena that are TRULY unobservable. We can only explain what we observe. Sometimes our explanations lead us to predictions of phenomena that we cannot observe. And ANYONE can sit around and theorize about things that are unobservable (be they crap-spewing philosophers, theologians, or abstract mathematicians). At that level, the differences in their theorizing amount to what assumptions they start out with. In other words, we COULD all be some grand cosmic simulation on an alien virtual reality machine, but if we are, who gives an fsck, the reasonable person lives his or her life as if it matters, as if things do have logical explanations. And I don't care about what the majority of people think (i.e. they can all BELIEVE in god if they choose, but god is still an unobservable phenomenon because you can always redefine His role). That's what makes those things beliefs, that rely on faith. I'm sick of bullshit artists who spew crap that science is just another faith. Let's see your astrology/religion/theology stand up to my nuclear weapons arsenal! :)
Fnkmaster (no password)
gabriel@fas.harvard.edu
I don't mean that you should gather the opinions and tabulate the results.
I mean you should first find a common experience that, while philosophically no stronger than the idea of God, is still adhered to by everyone. Vision is a good example. We all jump out of the way of a moving bus. (except suicides, but they too can see the danger--that's why they are doing it).
So we can all apparently agree that images that strike our eyes represent "reality" in some form or other. Now all we need to do is map the more doubtful phenomena (existence of God, correctness of physics formula, etc) to these common experiences. This is exactly what experiments do.
And science passes experiments, non-science does not.
The quote is attributed to PT Barum......
I bet if he had a computer he'd put a free os on it and call it gnulix
Anyway, the point is that science is based on something and astrology (and in my opinion, religion) is based on some person saying "Uh, yeah, this is the truth... because so and so says so.
kmj9907
--I'd have an account if the stupid mailer thingy would send me my passwd!!!
THIS DOES NOT TIDE ME OVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I feel it should be noted here that reading the Bible does not automatically qualify you as belonging to a religion.
I would have to agree, since I read the bible so as to further be capable of demonstrating the utter stupidity of the religions which use it as a foundation.
I invite you to read Emmet Fox's "Sermon on the Mount".
If you read Martin Luther's "On The Jews and Their Lies", I will read "Sermon on the Mount". The bible isn't necessarily paranormal nonsense, it's just nonsense with some history mixed in for good measure. I would consider it superstition before I would consider it paranormal.
Astrology is fictionaly, just like The Force. That doesn't mean it isn't entertaining, of course.
Somebody else wrote that already.
It was like the 4th or 5th comment.
Access Hollywood *PROMISED* the trailor today on their show, so unless they are lying bastards, it should be on. It's a syndicated show, so check your listings. If it isnt, i'm calling for the immediate death of Pat O'Brien
What was the population of the world during the time Barnum was first credited with the quote? It should be even less than 10 seconds then.
Either you smoke too much pot, or you'll discover that philosophy is nothing more than mental masturbation. Play with yourself. This is a pointless discussion because it ignores logic. I see nothing of value for me in continuing this conversation.
What if in our universe 1 != 1
Ok.
Build a computer starting with this assumption. When you are able to do so, then you will not only prove your point, but actually may have a point. It's worthless to discuss what reall is and what we observe. What doesn't effect you doesn't matter, what you cannot observe is irrelevant.
OK let me get this straight... you are arguing over the signs of fictional characters? enjoy things a little people sheesh.
wouldn't be controlled by the same astrological forces as we are.
I got news for you. We aren't
Bad news for trailer junkies:
/may/ see the trailer with WC on Friday, there is no guarantee.
Lucasarts has not tied the trailer to Wing Commander. Instead they put it in general release. So while you
Personally, I'm betting all the theater's attach it to "The Deep End of the Ocean", just to raise the number of ticket sales.
How about:
[ ] I think the paranormal is for suckers
[ ] All religion is bunk
Hmm... Does the slashdot engine support checklists for polls, or just radio buttons?
Aries are primitif, it's why they like PSX/OS
/.
Taurus are slow ! They like SlowLaris and Amiga
Gemini are no very stable and are tief ! it's why thy like M$ and Warez
Leo are just use Cu-SeeMe
Libra don't know yet, the good choice for a good OS.
Scorpio play SPAM, sex and drugs
Virgo are the best C coders, but are never happy and flame on
Cancer only use the same OS that the Mums say to use...
Capricorn, love linux, but don't have sexual live (yet).
Aquarius, don't like to play like everyone.. it's why they like SGI and CP/M
Picsie are lost ! they can't use a Computers
(Sorry, for my bad english, flame are welcome)
I thought Tatooine had two Suns. I don't remember it having two moons, however, my memory could be fading. Perhaps it had both two Suns and two moons. Oh well, I guess I have to go back and watch the movie again to refresh my memory!
I just rewatched Star Wars last week. There are definitely two suns; I don't recall seeing a moon. Which is not to say there isn't one (or more).
I don't know, but I bet he'd use TWM. Not that kaediyee or guhnown trash.
Do you mean Libra don't know of any OS so far being any good yet, don't know which choice is best, don't know there's any other OS than the one they use, or don't know that OSes exist and have choices?
In the real world, 1 != 1, and it does affect you. It just doesn't affect you *much*.
... brb... gravity and atmosphere, the distinction shouldn't matter. It's.... CLOSE ENOUGH.
Basically, everything is based on floats and the concept of 'close enough'.
Experiment:
Weigh two apples in the same gravity and at STP, significant to the nearest atomic mass unit. Compare the values.
Next, weigh two machined steel dowels, same gravity, and at STP, 1/4" thick, 1' long, to the same degree of accuracy. Compare the values.
ObDisclaimer: Yes, I know the difference between weight and mass. I just can't remember the term for determining mass, other than determining mass, and since you're theoretically doing this in the same
For instance:
Both science and religion are completely based on observation and speculation. Scientists will never know where we come from because nobody was alive when the universe was created. One will never know if their religion is true until they die. It's all belief and speculation. If I observe something does it exist? Maybe, but who says my eyes weren't playing tricks on me.
Face it, science and religion are almost identical. The problem is (and this applies to both the religious and scientific community) that people are so damned pessimistic and closed minded that they can't fathom the possibility that they might be wrong. Perhaps there is more truth to religion than you realize. Just because you can't see and hear something doesn't mean it is not there, if that were true than all I would have to do to rid myself of some annoying individual would be to close my eyes and plug my ears. Believe me when that and it doesn't work.
I for one believe in the possibility of everything. I refuse to close my mind to one set belief system, because if I choose one and am wrong, I might not notice if the right one arrives. I believe in science and religion and respect everyone else's belief system. It is my humble belief that a closed mind is a useless mind, and to dismiss any possibility without thought (science or religion) is a very closed mind.
This is a pointless discussion because it ignores logic. I see nothing of value for me in continuing this conversation.
If you truly saw no value to continuing this conversation, then your "logic" should have told you that a reply stating how pointless the discussion is, is even more pointless than the pointless discussion itself.
Science statement: Billions of years ago the universe was formed do to a this or that causing explosions and so on and so forth, etc.
I disagree. That's not Science, unless someone can show how this hypothesis was tested. And I do not mean 'We made a hypothesis about what else would happen if the first one was true, and we then checked, and found that reality behaved the way the second hypothesis suggested it would.' Congratulations. I'm not sure exactly how to describe the masterbation you just performed, but it was apparently very satisfying. Now go home and do a *real* proof.
Bah! The people who pass themselves off as Scientists these days. (Not to mock the real scientists out there. They should be able to figure out who they are.)
Yes, I know the difference between weight and mass. I just can't remember the term for determining mass, other than determining mass, and since you're theoretically doing this in the same ... brb... gravity and atmosphere, the distinction shouldn't matter. It's.... CLOSE ENOUGH.
If you can't do something as elementary as remember the difference between weight and mass there isn't any point in talking to you. Mass is independant of the force of gravity, weight is not.
If you read the book I mention, you may learn that the Bible is not a book to be read literally.
No offense, but I find reading the bible about equally exciting as reading the back of sugar packets.
I sure will. However, it sounds like the book may have a few anti-semitic overtones.
A few? That's an understatement.
"Therefore be on your guard against the Jews, knowing that wherever they have their synagogues, nothing is found but a den of devils in which sheer self-glory, conceit, lies, blasphemy, and defaming of God and men are practiced most maliciously and veheming his eyes on them."
He was the first Hitler. There is a stronger link between Hitler and Luther than there is between Hitler and Darwin, by far.
I used to talk alot like you, and was a hardcore atheist. It changed for me (I'm not saying it will or won't for you).
When I finish The Moral Animal I will consider reading it. I really hate to waste time learning things that aren't true.
Ex street rat/gutter punk
Oh that's why.
-Rich
Ex catholic that went through confirmation and almost became a priest. A complete waste of youth, more than you can understand. I'm forever atheist. God didn't create morals, reciprocal altruism did. All animals have a kind of morality and we are clearly animals.
Most Leoes I've met would rather use SeeMe-ObeyMe.
What about those of us who may be Sagitarians? I guess we, of course, can hack it all, *and* procreate (so long as the MOTAS involved doesn't like frenching; with our feet buried to the knee, there's frequently not room for another tongue...) on admittedly rare occasion.
We know the force. We know linux. We just don't advocate it, knowing that waiting is. (Sorry, quoting the wrong Sagitarian. Sue me. I'll stall you so long your lawyers'll bankrupt you.)
Well, as Libras just sort of know things, I'd say it's that they fundamentally realize that all OSes suck (just some more than others)
Both science and religion are completely based on observation and speculation.
Wrong on both counts.
Science is based on observation, speculation and testing.
Religion is just based on speculation.
If all the science you've had is the dogmatic, 7th grade style, news program "studies-have-shown" then it's easy to get the impression that scientists are just pulling a bunch of speculation out of their asses (similar to religions).
But if you actually DO some science or take a class you will learn differently.
I thought I would inject a bit of reality here, after seeing discussions on things like whether astrological aspects would be different if you were born on another planet. So let me interject a dose of reality:
These Star Wars characters can't have ANY astrological sign, because they DON'T EXIST! They are just a piece of fiction.
Would you fucking losers get a life, and spend some time worrying about something on THIS plane of existence, for once?
Science statement: Billions of years ago the universe was formed do to a this or that causing explosions and so on and so forth, etc.
My statement: So you were there? What did it look like? In fact you look damn good for someone who is a Billion years old!
Actually, historical fact: Georges LeMaitre in an effort to unite religion with science proposes the Big Bang theory after he realizes that if the Universe is explaning (and you can observe that it is) that if you go backwards in time, you end up with a proto atom
George LeMaitre gets laughed at by most of the scientific community because he's a Beligan priest, albeit a very gifted one.
Some scientists, by the name of Robert Dicke and P. Peebles make a mathematical model that predicts that if the Big Bang did occur, also predicts how much radiation would have been produced. They also predict that this radiation should be seen from all points in space at the same levels since the Universe should warp in on itself (there is no edge to the Universe or center).
Two scientists at Bell labs by the name of Wilson and Penzias are fooling around with radio equipment and get bothersome noise and no matter where they point their incredibly sensitive equipment they still get noise. The spend months trying to eliminate the "problem".
Wilson and Pensias team up with Dicke and Peebles (through another scientist - Burke) and discover that theory agrees with observation. The noise turns out to be an echo from the Big Bang. The predicted background radiation is shown to exist. Wilson and Pensias get the 1978 Nobel prize in physics for providing the first theoretical evidence for the Big Bang theory.
Everybody realizes that LeMaitre was right after all.
Only idiots use faith as a tool. Read a book, stupid. No faith is involved with science except for people that don't know science well enough to understand it.
If you guys went to the official starwars web page (i.e. the lucasfilms one) you would know that the trailer is not going to be released with any movie in particular. In fact it might not even have be released with Wing Commander.
I don't get it. What's the connection?
Oh, and it's "centripetal".
Your wrote explaning, but the context leads me to believe that you meant expanding so I will reply on that belief. First how do we truly know the universe is expanding? I didn't realize that we can see to the ends of the universe, I would think that discovery would have been on the news.
Then the science community must be filled with idiots. I say this because the scientists must have faith that the tools the use perform the function they expect. Because we cannot fly to the edge of the universe and watch it expand, you have to have faith that your telescope is actually showing you the edge of the universe. I mean, we don't know what is really out there beyond our galaxy because we cannot even physically reach the ends of our own galaxy, let alone areas beyond it. Therefore, when scientists explore the BIG BANG theory, or the universe expansion theory or anything else that they cannot physically prove, their proof (as they call it) is based on faith. (whether they admit it or not)
You obviously know nothing about an intelligent debate so let me teach you. Insulting the other person automatically discredits any thing you have to say and makes you look like a child. Perhaps you should learn some manners before you try and prove your point!
Wrong, religion is also based on observation, speculation and testing. However, scientists, with their overinflated egos, wouldn't even consider believing what many would consider proof in the religous community because they haven't seen it. However, I'm expected to believe their experements are true, even though I have never seen that.
I'm not advocating religion, all I'm saying is proof is in the eye of the beholder and what is the difference between a scientist proving science and a religous icon proving their religion? It's all belief in the end, because there is no true way to know for certain, this could all be a dream.
How did they know that the noise was from the Big Bang, did one of them travel back in time, witness the Big Bang and take readings, then travel back to their time and take the readings and get a match. Perhaps the radiation was coming from the sun, you do know that the sun puts out radiation don't you? Perhaps the radiation was left over from all that damn nuclear testing that went on previous. You can't say, without using FAITH that the radiation came from the Big Bang because you weren't there! (and neither were they) Science and religion are based in faith, science however tries to prove their faith to be fact and religion does not, therein lies the main difference.
Until you can travel back in time and show me the Big Bang, I will not believe that anything scientists try to put off as proof is nothing more than faith. After all seeing is believing, that is the scientists way, isn't it?
Your wrote explaning, but the context leads me to believe that you meant expanding so I will reply on that belief. First how do we truly know the universe is expanding? I didn't realize that we can see to the ends of the universe, I would think that discovery would have been on the news.
Doppler effect. Illuminated gasses filter select bands of light due to their quantum nature. The space between different the valence electrons of, say hydrogen, causes hydrogen to absorb a very very narrow bandwidth of light. You can identify gasses based on the spectrum they absorb. Hydrogen atoms at different states of excitement absorb different bands of light, as well as emit them. This is how a laser works, this is how a spectrometer works.
Knowing the relative spacing of the absorbed bands, you can tell if an object is moving toward or away from you if the bands are shifted up or down. If the bands are shifted up, the object is moving toward you (relatively speaking), if the bands are shifted down toward the lower end of the spectrum the object is moving away from you. Everything in the universe is moving away from everything else. I forgot who actually demonstrated this, it might have been Hubble.
Each star has a different gaseous envelope, called a corona which is analogous to our atmosphere. There are many stars like our own in the space that burn hydrogen (as opposed to some that burn helium) and we can see if they move toward or away from us. We can precisely identify the corona because different atoms absorb(and emit) different spectrums - we've tested this and we have the math to demonstrate it.
No faith involved.
Then the science community must be filled with idiots. I say this because the scientists must have faith that the tools the use perform the function they expect. Because we cannot fly to the edge of the universe and watch it expand, you have to have faith that your telescope is actually showing you the edge of the universe. I mean, we don't know what is really out there beyond our galaxy because we cannot even physically reach the ends of our own galaxy, let alone areas beyond it. Therefore, when scientists explore the BIG BANG theory, or the universe expansion theory or anything else that they cannot physically prove, their proof (as they call it) is based on faith. (whether they admit it or not)
No, it's just you that is the idiot. What is this faith do scientists depend on which they cannot test? You do understand that FAITH is a belief that has no rational reason to suppose the belief is correct don't you? What irrational beliefs do scientists hold when they do science? That 1+1=2?
You don't need to "fly to the edge of the universe", which would be exceedingly difficult since the universe has no boundaries. Telescopes do not see the edge of the universe either, they just see the oldest observable stars, or at least the Hubble does. What is beyond our galaxy is irrelevant since if it is beyond our galaxy it cannot effect us. There may very well be an invisible and undetectable man in my closet with an invisible and undetectable machete, but I'm not worrying about it since he'll have a difficult time slicing me up with a machete that cannot touch me.
Perhaps you should pull a dictionary out to find out what the meaning of faith is instead of pulling out some bullshit definition that you invented in a fit of seizure.
You obviously know nothing about an intelligent debate so let me teach you. Insulting the other person automatically discredits any thing you have to say and makes you look like a child. Perhaps you should learn some manners before you try and prove your point!
I know how to have an intelligent debate, but when I'm talking to an obvious intellectual moron that has absolutely no background on what he's debating I feel free to express my thoughts outright about the competence of my opponent. You are incompetent. You are stupid. You know nothing about science yet you call it faith, simply because YOU don't understand science and YOU don't know what the definition of faith is. My goal isn't to educate you, it's to embarrass you. I bet you are a fool for Jesus. A fool is still a fool.
You claim that everything in science is based on faith. So it's "faith" that leads us to believe that a stone thrown up into the air will eventually fall back to the ground, accelerating at about 9.8 m/s^2. It takes "faith" to think that the moon won't come crashing to Earth tomorrow, because nothing is holding it up. It's takes "faith" to think that the Earth will continue to revolve, faith to think that an object unimpeded will continue to move.
You have "faith" in science only because you don't understand science. I can see why a moron might think that it takes "faith" to think that science is like religion when said idiot cannot explain scientific facts any more than he can explain religious myths.
You cannot see, touch, hear, feel, or observe in any way whatsoever God. You can see a spectrum from a star. You can see what spectrum is emitted from an excited electron. You can observe doppler effect directly. The two "faiths" are hardly on the same shaky basis. You have absolutely no evidence for God, but you insist that it is just as probable as things we can observe directly for ourselves. This is stupidity on your part. You've been reading a lot of creationist pamphlets I bet.
How did they know that the noise was from the Big Bang, did one of them travel back in time, witness the Big Bang and take readings, then travel back to their time and take the readings and get a match. Perhaps the radiation was coming from the sun, you do know that the sun puts out radiation don't you? Perhaps the radiation was left over from all that damn nuclear testing that went on previous. You can't say, without using FAITH that the radiation came from the Big Bang because you weren't there! (and neither were they) Science and religion are based in faith, science however tries to prove their faith to be fact and religion does not, therein lies the main difference.
The noise may not be from the Big Bang, the important thing is this is what we would expect to see if the Big Bang happened. We would also expect to see the universe expanding and we do. Perhaps something else happened. This is why we have computer models. Until we find out what Dark Matter actually is (and I have a thought as to what it might be) we won't know. The current super computer tests that have been used to test theory have not produced universes like our own yet. We are definitely missing something. This is a well known fact. We may not ever know exactly what happened, but we have a pretty good idea as to what probably happened. The question of why is left to the philosopher since they concentrate on the meaningless anyhow.
Until you can travel back in time and show me the Big Bang, I will not believe that anything scientists try to put off as proof is nothing more than faith. After all seeing is believing, that is the scientists way, isn't it?
Even if you do, how do you trust your senses? For all you know I created the Universe three days ago along with all your thoughts, all your memories, all your stupid notions about "faith" and all your warped ideas of what constitutes evidence and proof.
What you believe isn't important. The world doesn't revolve around you and the universe certainly couldn't give a shit about your ideas about it. If you believe that cats spring out of my ass every time I take a shit, I hardly care about it. I would just think you're an idiot to think this, but to each his own. I'm comfortable allowing you to live out your life as a drooling moron, regardless if you are or not.
Wrong, religion is also based on observation, speculation and testing.
? What testing?
What observation?
An evangelist arranges to have a "cripple" stand up and walk. Is that a test? How's that for observation?
Religion has never been open to outside and objective testing. It's always been a fraud. If you suggested that it was a fraud in the Dark Ages, they burned you at the stake for being a witch. Observe, if you don't conform, we'll KILL ya.
all I'm saying is proof is in the eye of the beholder
This isn't true. I can build TNT in my living room pretty easily. Tell me how to summon a demon. Tell me how to talk to god. Tell me how I can see heaven.
what is the difference between a scientist proving science and a religous icon proving their religion?
A scientist will show you how to prove it for yourself and give you the knowlege of how it works. The religious icon apparently has a secret of how he cures the lame, and can never cure the lame under labratory conditions. A scientist can always repeat his "feats".
I was going to go into a lengthy comparison about the similarities in science and religion. But then I decided to take you up on your advice and I looked up FAITH in the dictionary, something you obviously have never done or you wouldn't have told me to do it as one of your points. Because you are obviously too lazy to look at a dictionary yourself, I will put the dictionary definition here.
I presume most scientists have complete trust or confidence in science. It seems to me that you do. If that is the case, then you have FAITH
As I said before, if you insult someone in a debate, you lose all credibility without question. This time I proved it to you the "scientific way", next time I will ignore your ramblings.
Just like there are books about building TNT, there are also books about summoning demons. The big difference is it will take a lot more time to figure out how to apply the knowledge in the book about summoning a demon than it will to figure out how to build the TNT.
Proving a religion is a bit more difficult than proving science, I will admit that. But that doesn't mean that it can't be done. Another difference in proving religion as opposed to science is that religion can only be proven to oneself, it is much more difficult if not impossible to prove it to others. (Especially with all the frauds and freaks that are out there)
It is alot easier to prove that water is composed of oxygen and hydrogen, however, the only way to ultimately prove religious beliefs is to die. And I imagine that if the afterlife is real, then once dead, most people have no care to come back and prove themselves to the scientific community.
However, with these minor differences, both science and religion start out with faith that something is true, then they set out to prove it to themselves or others. Some people only succeed in proving that they are nuts, (in both the religous and science community) and some prove that they are right. Does it matter if it is only proven to yourself or to others, no, because if I am stubburn enough to refuse to believe that water is water, then your proof is irrelevant to me. (And yes I can refuse to believe that TNT is TNT, that doesn't mean that it won't explode in my hand because I refuse to believe in it. It simply means that I don't believe. Just because you don't believe in something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist)
You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Sure you may have read a few books about science and may even be an established scientist, but you obviously don't understand human nature.
Human nature?
Axiom 1) all people do things for purely selfish reasons
Axiom 2) reciprocal altruism is the basis for morality
Axiom 3) cooperation increases the welfare of the greater good
Axiom 4) because people are purely selfish the greater good will never be addressed.
"The Moral Animal" makes quite a point on how sociobiology is linked to human "ethics".
YOU don't understand human nature. We act like animals. We are animals. We just have better communication.
First of all, calling someone a moron simply because you don't understand their view is about as mature as a two year old.
I do understand your point of view. It's not difficult to understand ignorance. I will address you as a two year old as long as you have the education of one.
And no, a proper debate does not mean you insult the other person, a debate means you present the facts as each side sees it and let a decision come from that. Never once have I insulted you.
Who ever said this was a debate? I just like being a pain in the ass sometimes. This is purely recreation to me.
faith 1. unquestioning belief, specif. in God, religion, etc. 2. a particular religion 3. complete trust or confidence 4. loyalty
Dummy, science doesn't require trust, in fact it SHUNS it. All science is built upon skepticism. But once something is proved, you swallow your pride and move on. That's why there aren't too many (if any) scientists that TRUST or have CONFIDENCE in the eternal universe theory anymore. Their LOYALTY to the wrong theory was short lived when evidence of the Big Bang surfaced.
There is no loyalty among REPUTABLE scientists to pet theories. People defend what they believe but once they realize they are wrong, it is career suicide to continue to refuse defeat once it's been demonstrated that you've been defeated. Even Einstein knew he was wrong about the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle, and even he admitted defeat once Bohr demonstrated that he was wrong. Pride plays a part but is a shadow compared to evidence.
I presume most scientists have complete trust or confidence in science. It seems to me that you do. If that is the case, then you have FAITH
Yes, you presume. You presume this because you are still an idiot. There is NO faith in science. You can examine all the evidence yourself. If you find an error in a theory, you'll be famous. It's open to evaluation and scrutiny. Scrutinize.
Religion is falling apart because it isn't true. Science is growing stronger because it is true. There isn't any faith, just cold merciless truth. Darwin was wrong about group selection, he was also wrong about trait inheritence. Einstein was wrong about the Uncertainty Principle. Freud was wrong about the Oedipus Complex and Electra Complex.
It took the Catholic Church over 300 years to admit that they were in error with regards to the Inquisition. This is the difference between dogamatic faith and actual truth. Science has overtaken religion quickly. There will always be religion however because a fair amount of the population will not be able to continue to live once they realize that life is meaningless in a greater context. Religion is a mental reflex to the horrible realization that life is not fair and there is no absolute morality. It is highly probable in my opinion that the next religion, the next widespread religion, will be a manufactured one based on psychology instead of supersition. Secular Humanism is not this religion, it will probably be based on Utilitarianism.
As I said before, if you insult someone in a debate, you lose all credibility without question. This time I proved it to you the "scientific way", next time I will ignore your ramblings.
You're one to talk about ramblings.
"how do we truly know the universe is expanding?"
"I didn't realize that we can see to the ends of the universe"
"Then the science community must be filled with idiots."
"you have to have faith that your telescope is actually showing you the edge of the universe."
"their proof (as they call it) is based on faith. (whether they admit it or not)"
That is rambling. As I've already stated, I do not care about credibility. The fact is that I stand on much firmer ground than you know. I don't care if you believe me, I only want to show you why it is impossible for you to be correct.
Just like there are books about building TNT, there are also books about summoning demons. The big difference is it will take a lot more time to figure out how to apply the knowledge in the book about summoning a demon than it will to figure out how to build the TNT.
I think the real difference is the TNT exists.
Proving a religion is a bit more difficult than proving science, I will admit that.
Gee, you think they would have been able to do it in the course of 5,000 years. It only took Darwin 20 years to collect enough evidence to destroy the notion of creation. It only took a century for geology to show there was never a global flood.
(Especially with all the frauds and freaks that are out there)
Yeah, I wonder why all these frauds an freaks are in the religious instead of scientific community? That's just the oddest thing.
It is alot easier to prove that water is composed of oxygen and hydrogen, however, the only way to ultimately prove religious beliefs is to die. And I imagine that if the afterlife is real, then once dead, most people have no care to come back and prove themselves to the scientific community.
Another assumption not based on fact. Houdini said that if there was an afterlife he would come back to prove it. Houdini, besides being a great magician, was also a great debunker on the paranormal - a result of being a victim of the astrologers and psychics of his day.
However, with these minor differences, both science and religion start out with faith that something is true, then they set out to prove it to themselves or others.
Religion does this, science does not. Science observes what is and then attempts to explain why it is. It does not start out with "this is" and then try to prove that it is. The first method is a logical fallacy, the second is science. This is why science works, and religion leads to Jim Jones, the Inquisition, the Taipeng Rebellion, and the Children's Crusade of 1212.
Galileo observed the relative motion of the planets. He then realizes that if the Earth was the center of the universe, the planets move in circles. Once he place the sun at the center of the Universe (also incorrect - however) all the planets moved in relatively the same way. Voila. He worked from evidence to a theory, not from a theory to evidence.
This is why creationism is not a science. It is also why it now fails to even qualify as a theory. There is not supporting evidence.
It is useless to argue this point. You do not understand the the most rudimentary aspects of science. Your science teacher in High School should be fired.
I don't understand the point of reading this book.
The point of reading the book is to understand the person that brought about the Reformation. Today religion takes the highly hypocritical stance that it is the source of morality when it was responsible for a host of attrocities throughout the ages. That's the point.
How did Hitler become a part of this?
Hitler echoed the teachings of Luther and was apparently heavily influenced by them. If you read Luther (at least his works that are now surpressed) this is quite evident.
That's really extreme, and would probably belittle the suffering the Jewish people
It is NOT the LEAST bit extreme to make the comparison. It is not exaggeration, and it is not overstating the fact.
Upon further examination, you'll find that Christ never went on about any setting up of a church or theological discussions.
True. However one verse sticks with me:
"My god, my god, why have you forsaken me?"
This hardly sounds like the words of GOD. The bible was written by the Roman Catholic Church in the 1st century. The bible is the Church's book and is an instrument to serve the Church.
I find my faith in helping others.
I suggest you read up on Utilitarianism. Jesus would have most likely been a Utilitarianism. The philosophy is simple, cooperation brings about a greater good for the majority within society. It is more or less self evident. God need not enter in the picture.
I have a reliance on a higher power now that relieves me.
I'm sorry, but I just find that statement pathetic. Just because it is a comfort to believe doesn't mean your not eating a placebo. I would like to think the S&P 500 is going to keep going up for 25 more years so I can retire, but that doesn't mean it will.
If the placebo works for you go with it. But it's still a sugar pill to me.
Also, no offense, I do not believe you have read The Moral Animal. I'm guessing, but given your age and the fact that the book is relatively new, it would have overlapped (most probably) with your religious years. It is also not typical to read when you are 16.
So what if I'm taking a placebo?
Agreed. So what.
Hardly. It is a book written by many.
Yes, many in the church, at least the new (and Improved!) testament. The old testament is, of course, the Torah.
I expound upon my spirituality.
Sprituality is an illusion. If you were as heavy into drugs as you claim that should be obvious to you.
I am not your typical 16 year old, if you've read the above.
I'm afraid that I feel compelled to challenge you: Who's life was examined in detail in The Moral Animal? There were 2 actually, name the main one and name the second one. If you had read the book this should be trivial to answer.
Again, we can continue via email, if you wish.
It's more easily discussed here. Perhaps later.
--
"One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
An anonymous coward wrote..
here's an interesting poll:
[ ] I read my horoscope today
[ ] I read a SINGLE bible verse today
You forgot..
[ ] I haven't read any fiction today
Go proofread the Modern Language Association's homepage or something.
Don Negro
Don Negro
Perl 6 will give you the big knob. -- Larry Wall
That's right. Nasty, power hungry Scorpio's.
BTW, I hope we get a manned mission to Mars soon, and that from there it's a quick jump to colonization, 'cause quite a few of the posters above need to be living in a place that's O.38 G.
Don Negro
Don Negro
Perl 6 will give you the big knob. -- Larry Wall
got a link?
i tried finding it on starwars.countingdown.com, since i got an e-mail saying it was there, but i couldn't find it anywhere.
End of line..
Even though there was no trailer release, the South Park spoof of the first trailer that they did was pretty damn funny :) Everyone should check it out.
http://209.140.92.4/starwars/specia ledition.htm
Astrology is ignorant in nature, and for a person seeking higher guidance in life it's sad to see them choose such poor counterfiet. I'm glad this article applies it to ficticious characters to whom it will cause no hurt.
;)
(here's an interesting poll:
[ ] I read my horoscope today
[ ] I read a SINGLE bible verse today
^^ A *MUCH* better quality counterfeit for people seeking higher guidance in life.
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
4. Beings born in other galaxies wouldn't have birthdates from the earth's calendar upon which the astrological signs are based.
:)
Yes, I know, it was all in fun. But since other people were poking at it....
<tim><
I also wasn't aware that robots were capable of having astrological signs. After all, they aren't technically born. Unless defining "born" means "bringing into this world[/universe/whatever]..."
But if machines are capable of having signs, all the Windows boxes at work are definitely Aries. (inflicting pain on people)
-mickey
Well, if you don't like it, start your own damn Slashdot. People didn't learn their lesson from Freshmeat, did they...?
-- We live in a world where lemonade is artificial and soap has real lemon.
Just like a spinning top, the Earth's axis of rotation wobbles - it takes about 26000 years to make one complete wobble.
The Zodiac signs in the newspapers are based on the sky about 2500 years ago. Now, the Sun passes through thirteen constellations, not twelve:
Pisces -> March 13 - April 19
Aries -> April 20 - May 12
Taurus -> May 13 - June 20
Gemini -> June 21 - July 19
Cancer -> July 20 - August 11
Leo -> August 12 - September 17
Virgo -> Sepetember 18 - October 31
Libra -> November 1 - November 21
Scorpius -> November 22 - November30
Ophiuchus -> December 1 - December 18
Sagittarius -> December 19 - January 18
Capricorn -> January 19 - February 17
Aquarius -> February 18 - March 12
Elevators smell different to midgets. ProZac
The reference to Wing Commander is due to a rumor cirulating that the second Phantom Menace trailer will be attached to it.
>Try proving that 1 == 1 without using any preconceived ideas.
:-)
Though few people realize it the essential quality of proof is the ability to instill belief. (This is a mathematical definition as given by Femat). This definition is a sensible consequence of the (self-contradictory) 'fact' that we can never truly know anything (a 'truth' that is self evident to any philosopher).
>horoscopes are just as valid as anything else [including science]
Crap.
Science like horoscopes are imperfect. Scientific theory like the theory of horoscopes is imprecise, and sometimes downright wrong. As we can never really know anything believing in these theories is a matter of faith.
However the Scientific process is different from (though inspired by) Religious practice. Scientific theories aren't accepted unless
1) They can be used to predict measurable phenomena
(eg The theory of gravity predicts that masses will be attracted to each other by a measurable amount).
2) The results of experiments agree with the predictions made by using the scientific theory.
(Gauss predicted where an asteriod Ceres? would reappear in the sky the next year after observing its position over a short duration of time).
Now horoscopes do make a lot of predictions, but I can't measure their accuracy, hence horoscopes aren't scientific.
The same goes for Religion which deals with the supernatural.
Now historically religious persons would disagree with this, this is what miracles are all about (God exists since supernatural events occur). I think the jury will be out indefiinitely on this, though the Catholic church seems to be declaring less miracles nowadays.
I don't disbelieve in horoscopes, or religion, but I sure as hell don't believe in them
Or a more serious note I've noticed people putting down religion, abstract mathematics and philosphy in this thread.
I find this lack of repect disconcerting. As a friend of mine once pointed out, philosophy isn't a waste of time it gave us our system of logic!
Still, it's a cute page...
And ANYONE can sit around and theorize about things that are unobservable (be they crap-spewing philosophers, theologians, or abstract mathematicians).
I object to my kind being lumped together with philosphers and theologians. While philosophers and theologians believe that the crap they spew can help to understand the natural world (which I agree is a completely faulty notion), mathematicians understand that from the get-go they are dealing with the world of the imagination, not anything "real." We've just chosen to recede into our heads, as opposed to surrounding ourselves with delusions about the Universe.
-josh
Aren't you dead?
grammer -> grammar
:-P
Logic can disprove, but never prove. Guesses are all we have, but some guesses predict more than others and some ways of thinking work better.
Even if there are gremlins, if there is no theoretical way to distinguish between the gremlin theory and the sound wave theory, then *it doesn't matter which is true*. Theories are only a means of explaining and predicting things that happen in the real world. They have meaning only in that they help us to perform predictions and they help our anthropomorphic minds latch onto concepts.
If you want your gremlins, go ahead, but the effect of a gremlin and sound waves will be the same, so it doesn't matter which you pick.
--John
It would be better that Taco posted an excuse to all the companies that have Linux clusters, have had them before IBM and Siemens and have considered Linux to be a supported system for years.
It would be definitely better than wasting space for this absolute BS...
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
But your spelling and grammer *ARE* still pretty bad regardless.
so do us all a favor and don't assume that you're a better representative of the linux community
arvind rulez
I can see all the fuss about Star Wars, and I understand the refrence to Wing Commander.
But why not include news/tid-bits about The Matrix? If this is Linux-heavy news for nerds with room to stray off topic, why not look at the movie that promises to question reality while pleasing nerds and dragging up memories of Blade Runner and Dune?
Check out the strip at http://www.whatisthematrix.com/
Great story line and illustration.
Or get back to kernal speak.........
peas
caut10n
ROFL!
Hmmm
"Arrr! The laws of science be a harsh mistress." -- Bender
At least I share a sign with Obi Wan. That's kinda cool. And if you say otherwise, I'll use the Force on yo ass. Or something.
-J.Pierpont
http://dino.res.cmu.edu
I doubt you'll be painted with the same brush as Rob, but that's probably unfortunate for you. Rob has a sense of humor. You're anal retentive :)
This is a reasonably clever site. However stuff like this is making me want to move to Mongolia until the movie comes out. I love Star Wars, but man I'm dreading the Star Wars Happy Meals, Access Hollywood sneak previews and so on. Then come the painful news reports about people showing up in costume opening night. Then the weekly grosses, and how they measure up to expectations. Will Star Wars beat Titanic at the box office? I can just hear the local newscasters now. Maybe I just wont turn on the vile box, and spend more time tweaking this one.
1: If Luke and Leia are twins, then how could they be born different signs?
2: Oh. Right. So all the ewoks were born under the same sign!
3: And here's the kicker: I assume that different planets (non Earth) have different year-lengths. Also different lunar periods... hell, Tatooine even has 2 moons! How would the astrological signs even apply in this case???
Aside from that, it was a nice morning diversion!
--
- Sean
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
- Sean
D'oh!
My bad
--
- Sean
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
- Sean
I am the Evil Genius, dammit!
--Corey
Not only will they not deserve liberty or safety, Mr. Franklin, they will be DENIED both!
Man, some people give Aries a hard break. That's
cool, though. I'll just use those electrical
bolts to fry these people that infest MY Aries
hating universe.
I resent that.
One of the things I learned from science is that just because you you can't see, hear, touch, taste, or smell, doesn't mean it's not true/doesn't exist.
I feel it should be noted here that reading the Bible does not automatically qualify you as belonging to a religion. And if you think alot of the Bible is paranomal nonsense, I invite you to read Emmet Fox's "Sermon on the Mount".
Sometimes I wonder
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March >I would have to agree, since I read the bible so >as to further be capable of demonstrating
>the utter stupidity of the religions which use
>it as a foundation.
If you read the book I mention, you may learn that the Bible is not a book to be read literally.
>If you read Martin Luther's "On The Jews and >Their Lies", I will read "Sermon on the
>Mount". The bible isn't necessarily paranormal >nonsense, it's just nonsense with some
>history mixed in for good measure. I would >consider it superstition before I would
>consider it paranormal.
I sure will. However, it sounds like the book may have a few anti-semitic overtones. I don't believe you'll find Emmet declaring anybody a liar in his book. It's interesting to note that he was largely criticized by a large part of the christian community for taking a radical departure from alot of the commonly held beliefs of his time.
I used to talk alot like you, and was a hardcore atheist. It changed for me (I'm not saying it will or won't for you).
SPiKe
Ex street rat/gutter punk
>Ex catholic that went through confirmation and
>almost became a priest. A complete
>waste of youth, more than you can understand.
>I'm forever atheist. God didn't create >morals, reciprocal altruism did. All animals have >a kind of morality and we are clearly >animals.
I also was an ex-catholic. However, I'm not a
catholic and I feel that it's unfair to compare
our situations. I didn't turn to a higher power
(what I choose to call God) because someone
preached at me, but because it (I believe ) was
the thing that saved me from myself.
I spent endless nights at the age of 15 in alleys
in Tacoma, Washington. I knew drinking was
killing me and getting me in to more trouble, but
I couldn't stop. I found myself all of sudden
sent to a detox and rehab program, and people
helped me out, where my family wouldn't. I can
only call that a miracle. After two years of
being off drugs and alcohol, I was going crazy,
and I was beyond wanting a drink. I wanted to
kill myself. I felt myself asking for help in
prayer (I was still pretty atheist at this point)
, and I got relief. I am now 18. I've gone from
a 16 year old kid picked off the street with a
GED and one year of high school to being in charge
of a department of web developers and Senior
Unix administrator.
Call it luck, but I believe it was God working in
my life. I trust that my God will work it all
out, and I don't have to struggle anymore. That's
all. A simple reliance upon a power greater than
myself and trying to be of use wherever I go. No
preaching.
If you want to discuss this via email,
it's justin@pajo.com
>No offense, but I find reading the bible about >equally exciting as reading the back of
>sugar packets.
Well, we don't seek the same things from the
book.
>A few? That's an understatement.
>"Therefore be on your guard against the Jews,
>knowing that wherever they have their
>synagogues, nothing is found but a den of
>devils in which sheer self-glory, conceit,
>lies, blasphemy, and defaming of God and men
>are practiced most maliciously and
>veheming his eyes on them."
I don't understand the point of reading this book.
>He was the first Hitler. There is a stronger
>link between Hitler and Luther than there is
>between Hitler and Darwin, by far.
How did Hitler become a part of this? That's
really extreme, and would probably belittle the
suffering the Jewish people went through. I never
attacked Darwin's system. For all I know,
evolution happened.
Listen, I never said I associate with a church.
I also said that the Bible doesn't neccesarily
have anything to do with the church. Upon further
examination, you'll find that Christ never went
on about any setting up of a church or theological
discussions.
I presonally do not find God in the worldly
clamors and singing of church, nor in the dogma
or the legislation of morals into law by the likes
of Jesse Helms. I find my faith in helping
others. I found my faith through my own life experiences.
I have read The Moral Animal. I've also read
alot of Chomsky, a lot of Marx, all of Nietsche,
Darwin. I used to believe strongly in all of
what these writers wrote. It got me to a life
of hell on Earth (read below). I have a reliance
on a higher power now that relieves me. I don't
try to push it like an addictive drug on to
small children and Linux geeks.
Im sorry, but I just find that statement pathetic. Just because it is a comfort to believe doesn't mean your not eating a placebo. I would like to think the S&P 500 is going to keep going up for 25 more years so I can retire, but that doesn't mean it will. Paroxically, it is the way of strength for me. So what if I'm taking a placebo? It's working for me, and I lose nothing by believing as I do. This hardly sounds like the words of GOD. The bible was written by the Roman Catholic Church in the 1st century. The bible is the Church's book and is an instrument to serve the Church. Hardly. It is a book written by many.
f the placebo works for you go with it. But it's still a sugar pill to me.
Also, no offense, I do not believe you have read The Moral Animal. I'm guessing, but
given your age and the fact that the book is relatively new, it would have overlapped
(most probably) with your religious years.
I am constantly challenged to read such books.
Also, please note I do not make any religious arguments. I expound upon my spirituality. I do not believe in the church.
It is also not typical to read when you are 16.
I am not your typical 16 year old, if you've read the above. Again, we can continue via email, if you wish.
justin@pajo.com
Idiot.
--
Beef
"Raging Moderate" of the
6. I lost my contacts.
--
Beef
"Raging Moderate" of the
I wonder why someone who apparently considers themselves a "Christian" has declined to identify themself, and that they would further criticize someone else's beliefs.
It's just sad.
Zagmar