Not trying to start a flamewar, especially against a strawman argument, but just wanted to point out why it's a strawman flamebait:
So should we just slither back to the cave and freeze in the dark and ignorance.
Science shines a light on the workings of nature to the best of our abilities and that is far sight better than sacrificing virgins every year so that we can have a successful growing season. I don't believe I said it was worthless? Certainly science is pragmatic, but that doesn't mean it's the objective end-all-be-all Truth of the Universe.
Also, initially it was men who were sacrificed for the growing season. It was symbolic of the Dying and Rising God who was connected to the plants. You know how semen is referred to as 'the seed'? What do plants come from?
A leap of faith into the metaphysical has yielded nothing of value yet and has resulted in 10000+ theologies that conflict and war with each other.
You really can't see the difference uh? You don't seem to value your sensory input.
Close your eyes, and plug your ears and try to get by with just the metaphysical - good luck. This is a clear manipulation of my point and completely missed it. I never once claimed sensory input was worthless, but only that it does part of the job -- not the whole one. And not all theologies conflict and war with eachother. Hinduism has a pretty long history of tolerance of other religions (Conflicts with Islam aside, though those were largely prompted on the Islamic side initially.) Buddhism, Shinto, Daoism, Sikhism, Jainism, Sufism, Hare Krishna (I'll grant it's more recent so may not count). Those are some of the religions which don't war with others and, in some ways, are very similar in their beliefs. If you disagree perhaps it'd be best to study them closer with a more open mind. Besides, it's best to know how the opposition thinks so you can argue properly without strawman arguments.
Hogwash - if you are going to try to reduce scientific theories to the same level as bronze age campfire stories you are going to have to work harder than that. Again, I never said anything about scientific theories being the same level as the legends of antiquity. I was merely saying they were accepted as truth at the time, are considered myth now, and current religious truth will likely follow the same route while at the same time: No evidence for or against of any sort has been, or can be, provided. I'm really taking a skeptical agnostic route: It is not possible to KNOW with ABSOLUTE certainty what the Universal Truth of Everything is. You can't get outside the system to verify it, that's why science can't know it's the Truth: You're limited to the tools you have -- your senses -- which are within the system you are trying to prove using the system.
We have proof the universe exists. We can see it, smell it, measure it, predict its behavior, etc... We can do none of these things for God. Where's your proof that what we can see, smell, measure, taste, and whatever else, is what there actually is? Is it because of your sense organs and how they work? Which is proven by seeing, measuring, etc...? How's that for circularity? That's the fundamental problem with science -- it cannot prove its claims of objective reality are just that: Objective. You'd have to somehow step outside the physical universe or the boundaries of our sensory organs and that's obviously impossible. Science makes the leap of faith that our senses can indeed tell us about the world. I don't exactly see how different that is from the leap of faith required for a belief in the metaphysical (note: I didn't say God but said Metaphysical for a reason.)
Add to this the fact that all previous religions and gods in history are mere myths and the chances of God being real drops even lower. Why is the current myth any more real than the previous ones? Other than you were raised to believe in this one? Again, who's to say the previous/current 'myths' are myths? One's myth is another's truth. If, as you say, we need to be able to measure things to prove them (or disprove), where's your data?
And, your whole post is essentially an argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument from ignorance). Just because we cannot prove God, doesn't mean science is right, nor does it mean God doesn't exist. "Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence."
What about the people (like me) who may try to buy the iPhone anyway even if they can't use it as a cell? (Or who will wait until someone finds a way to unlock/hack it to work with other carriers.) I don't care much about Visual Voicemail (as cool as it is) but the rest of it would be a major boon and is completely attractive. Granted knowing apple, its Rev A will have issues so perhaps may wait anyway.
I'm sure there's lots of techno nerds who are also stuck in contracts with other carriers and can't afford to drop them AND buy an iPhone who will be trying to do the same thing.
I think you need to review your logic.
!nontag would be a double negative, not a tautology. A tautology would be A = A, it's basically a simple identity statement. !nontag is not non-tag, although somewhat vague because it's not necessarily a tag, you could argue and interpret it as being a double negative (which I have) and so it would be a tag. Granted, a tag called tag is almost a tautology, I would argue it's not since you could tag a tag as being a tag, but that is essentially giving it a label. A tautology either is redundant use of terms adding no new information (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(rhetoric)) (which calling a term a tag wouldn't necessarily do depending on the context) or is true by it's logical form (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic))
!true would be a paradox, I'll assume this was just a mistaken omission. This is basically the Liar's Paradox
Wow people get offended easy. Take it in the context in which it was intended: Humor. I'm gay and have no problem with people using gay epithets provided the context is humorous like this one was.
Now if he specifically said to someone, "stupid n*gger" that's different. (Yes I censored it myself, but I'm just not comfortable saying it for some reason and people surely take offense even though it was merely an example.)
That's what's wrong with our society: We get too sensitive sometimes and overly quick to flip out about the tiniest things.
I have to say that finding a work-around is the most retarded thing ever. It's your computer, you should have any/all rights to modify the hardware you want without having to "Check if it's OK with Microsoft" or whatever. It's none of their business what you do with your hardware you paid for. It's another sloppy implimentation of something by Microsoft that could possibly have been done better.
I fear for and will pray for everyone who gets Vista and is a technogeek who likes to change their hardware.
The only way a mobile phone could kill the iPod is if it was the iPod with phone functions. Think Sidekick-like but as an iPod. Hopefully the rumored iPhone materializes
Slashdot Mirror
Science shines a light on the workings of nature to the best of our abilities and that is far sight better than sacrificing virgins every year so that we can have a successful growing season. I don't believe I said it was worthless? Certainly science is pragmatic, but that doesn't mean it's the objective end-all-be-all Truth of the Universe.
Also, initially it was men who were sacrificed for the growing season. It was symbolic of the Dying and Rising God who was connected to the plants. You know how semen is referred to as 'the seed'? What do plants come from? A leap of faith into the metaphysical has yielded nothing of value yet and has resulted in 10000+ theologies that conflict and war with each other.
You really can't see the difference uh? You don't seem to value your sensory input.
Close your eyes, and plug your ears and try to get by with just the metaphysical - good luck. This is a clear manipulation of my point and completely missed it. I never once claimed sensory input was worthless, but only that it does part of the job -- not the whole one. And not all theologies conflict and war with eachother. Hinduism has a pretty long history of tolerance of other religions (Conflicts with Islam aside, though those were largely prompted on the Islamic side initially.) Buddhism, Shinto, Daoism, Sikhism, Jainism, Sufism, Hare Krishna (I'll grant it's more recent so may not count). Those are some of the religions which don't war with others and, in some ways, are very similar in their beliefs. If you disagree perhaps it'd be best to study them closer with a more open mind. Besides, it's best to know how the opposition thinks so you can argue properly without strawman arguments. Hogwash - if you are going to try to reduce scientific theories to the same level as bronze age campfire stories you are going to have to work harder than that. Again, I never said anything about scientific theories being the same level as the legends of antiquity. I was merely saying they were accepted as truth at the time, are considered myth now, and current religious truth will likely follow the same route while at the same time: No evidence for or against of any sort has been, or can be, provided. I'm really taking a skeptical agnostic route: It is not possible to KNOW with ABSOLUTE certainty what the Universal Truth of Everything is. You can't get outside the system to verify it, that's why science can't know it's the Truth: You're limited to the tools you have -- your senses -- which are within the system you are trying to prove using the system.
And, your whole post is essentially an argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument from ignorance). Just because we cannot prove God, doesn't mean science is right, nor does it mean God doesn't exist. "Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence."
Or...
To make it Russian...wait, that doesn't work:
In Soviet Russia, Moon makes you!
But as far as making it american. Three things are missing:
a Gap, Starbucks, and McDonalds on every lunar corner.
So, does this mean we'll be able to get linux with gay porn pre-installed?
What about the people (like me) who may try to buy the iPhone anyway even if they can't use it as a cell? (Or who will wait until someone finds a way to unlock/hack it to work with other carriers.) I don't care much about Visual Voicemail (as cool as it is) but the rest of it would be a major boon and is completely attractive. Granted knowing apple, its Rev A will have issues so perhaps may wait anyway. I'm sure there's lots of techno nerds who are also stuck in contracts with other carriers and can't afford to drop them AND buy an iPhone who will be trying to do the same thing.
I think you need to review your logic. !nontag would be a double negative, not a tautology. A tautology would be A = A, it's basically a simple identity statement. !nontag is not non-tag, although somewhat vague because it's not necessarily a tag, you could argue and interpret it as being a double negative (which I have) and so it would be a tag. Granted, a tag called tag is almost a tautology, I would argue it's not since you could tag a tag as being a tag, but that is essentially giving it a label. A tautology either is redundant use of terms adding no new information (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(rhetoric) ) (which calling a term a tag wouldn't necessarily do depending on the context) or is true by it's logical form (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic))
!true would be a paradox, I'll assume this was just a mistaken omission. This is basically the Liar's Paradox
Wow people get offended easy. Take it in the context in which it was intended: Humor. I'm gay and have no problem with people using gay epithets provided the context is humorous like this one was. Now if he specifically said to someone, "stupid n*gger" that's different. (Yes I censored it myself, but I'm just not comfortable saying it for some reason and people surely take offense even though it was merely an example.) That's what's wrong with our society: We get too sensitive sometimes and overly quick to flip out about the tiniest things.
I have to say that finding a work-around is the most retarded thing ever. It's your computer, you should have any/all rights to modify the hardware you want without having to "Check if it's OK with Microsoft" or whatever. It's none of their business what you do with your hardware you paid for. It's another sloppy implimentation of something by Microsoft that could possibly have been done better. I fear for and will pray for everyone who gets Vista and is a technogeek who likes to change their hardware.
The only way a mobile phone could kill the iPod is if it was the iPod with phone functions. Think Sidekick-like but as an iPod. Hopefully the rumored iPhone materializes