Why is Slashdot ignoring the reports of Rob Malda and Andover's huge illegal campaign contribution to the Democratic party?
Liar.
If Rob's leftist editorial slant wasn't enough, he and his supporters at Andover had to go and illegally contribute US$134 000 to the coffers of Algore.
Common Cause has a searchable database of soft money contributions. Searches for "Andover", "Slashdot", and "Malda" reveal no contributions to any of the parties.
Mainstream sources (www.wired.com) are already reporting about this lapse in campaign finance.
A search of wired turns up no such articles.
Julius Stine, public policy analyst at the Kennedy School of Government was quoted as saying
A search of Kennedy School's website reveals no such person named "Stine" or "Stein".
My school began beta testing Campus Pipeline sometime last fall, and let me tell you it sucks.
This reminds me of my own experience with Channel One. My high school was one of the first to pioneer Channel One in '91. They gave us free televisions in every classroom if 95% of our student body watched a daily program consisting of 8 minutes of "news" and 2 minutes of advertising.
The news was worthless. Complete MTV-style filler, like Bill Nye the Science Guy, but without the science. The advertising was mostly junk products, like Doritos and Snickers. The fact that we were *required* by our teachers to watch the tripe definitely gave me a lower opinion of my school. I really think that it cheated our educational standards by encouraging students to adopt info-tainment as a way to get an education.
One of the pitches for the program was that we could run a tape in the library and have it played in all of the classrooms. That was a nice idea, but we really never used it that way.
I worry that Campus Pipeline is simply another way to sell a low-quality product at a price that is easily underestimated: converting students from thinkers into advanced consumers.
On the other hand, there is a rather small percentage of Americans that are not Christian (less than 10%). Of this minority nearly all of them are quite vocal in their contempt for Christianity.
Common Christian arrogance. Sorry for the flaming, but in this case I fight fire with fire.
I won't speak for the Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, etc., but I can say with confidence that most athiests and agnostics are not seeking a religious fight nor are they even demanding your attention. That lack of obvious visible presence is probably why you underestimate the representation of beliefs other than your own. Hmmm, does it suprise you that Slashdot seems to have an anti-Christian bias?
As for myself, I've been very comfortable with my athiesm for a long time. I engaged in only one serious religious discussion in the past seven years (since I was a college freshman). It was provoked by a dinner companion who commented that the Hare Krishnas across the street were going to Hell; he then spontaneously asked me: "so what do YOU believe?" He gave me the usual "try it, you'll like it" speech as if I hadn't been exposed to Christianity enough already.
Personally, I have had about a dozen friends, coworkers, and relatives who I knew were athiest. All of them were thoughtful, independent, well-educated people. More importantly, none of them were forcefully pushing an agenda. Perhaps I know many more athiests, but I don't notice because the conversation simply doesn't revolve around that sort of thing.
Anyway, I'm not suprised by the lack of athiest efforts to convert people or even to be noticed. Since I doubt that a Christian could convert me, I know by my own example that it is hopeless to try to talk sense into Christians.
Furthermore, it is not our religious imperative to convert others in an a friendly effort to save their souls.
Of course, there are many kinds of athiests and agnostics, and certainly some of them will be vocal. For example, they may engage in political action to prevent their rights from being trampled by Christians. School-led Christian prayer is a classic example.
Consider that for every "minority" that counteracts school-sponsored Christian prayer, there were many, many individuals who tolerated the Christian arrogance silently.
On a more personal note, I participate in Christian activities with my Christian family. I value the interaction with my family and I simply don't want to rock the boat.
In summary, the common Christian myth that athiests are vocal activists results from Christian ignorance and lack of exposure.
Look at the number of Darwin fish you see, for example.
Do you think that wearing a Darwin fish is more intrusive and contemptuous than wearing a cross?
Just like you don't want to hear me talk of Christ I don't particularly want to hear you compare Christians to Spammers.
These are not parallel. You asked why "if you had something that made your life better wouldn't you want to share it with others?" Are you complaining that you got a response? In contrast, the original poster is simply not searching for religion and does not need preachers to bring it to him.
Then why do you blame all Christians every time you meet an annoying one.
I don't think that overgeneralizations are a problem with the original post.
Perhaps his post would make more sense if you replaced the word "Christians" with the phrase "Christians who preach to me" which is clearly what the author is referring to. I think that your fixation on that issue has caused you to miss the main idea of his post. Since his point is similar to one that I made earlier, I will paraphrase it by quoting my own earlier words:
"You (Christians) have nothing to offer. That is why you are rejected like a bad spam. You might think that I haven't properly tried the religion and therefore I have no basis for rejecting it. However, I am confident that I can ignore Christianity. I have my reasons. If I smell sour milk, then I don't have to drink it to know it's rotten."
Hence, repeated Christian intrusions are treated like spam.
No. It is not about good and bad people, there is no such thing.
I don't want to debate the petty semantics of "good" and "bad". My point is that there must be some decision procedure for deciding whether people go to Heaven or Hell. Your followup describes that procedure:
Heaven according to Christianity is for those that believe in Jesus Christ as their savior (the one who can wash away their sins) and God as the only true God.
Okay whatever, so some people have x and some don't, and only people with x go to Heaven. The particular choice of x is not the main focus of my writing, so I will ignore the issues that it raises, such as sudden deathbed conversions.
Yes, he sees everything as a line of time, we see only what we are alive for, and how things affect us... He knows we are going to make mistakes, but he allows us to have a free will because he wants us to believe in Him because we know it's the Truth, not because we were forced into believing it.
This is exactly what I wanted you to say:-)
It would be a good exercise for me to write a critique of this philosophy; however, today I want to keep it brief. Let me just say that there are big issues about where the line is drawn between God's will and free will.
Every time a football player thanks God for the opportunity to play in the championship game, the player asserts something about that boundary. It seems to be common practice among Christians to make similar assumptions in other circumstances.
Sure, you can be humble about it when debating philosophy:
I'd like to say that I don't know everything, and I don't intend on ever thinking I do.
...but in reality, I often see Christians being very arrogant about knowing the difference, despite the complexity of it. I stand by my original comment: "One of my gripes with Christianity is the lack of concensus about which events are forced by God and which events are chosen by people. My observation of Christians is that their partition between 'events that God determines' and 'events decided by the morality of people' is cloudy; their classification seems to be based more on convenience and context than on principle"
Why have the Christians been hit so hard with animocity of solicitation? I see far more solicitators that are trying to take something from you. Christians at least are trying to give you something.
It has nothing to do with your intentions; it's about your product. You have nothing to offer. That is why you are rejected like a bad spam.
You might think that I haven't properly tried the religion and therefore I have no basis for rejecting it. However, I am confident that I can ignore Christianity. I have my reasons. If I smell sour milk, then I don't have to drink it to know it's rotten.
Learning may occur as a result of the test, but I am still concerned with the Heaven vs. Hell thing. Good people go to Heaven and bad people go to Hell, right? Presumably, the decision is based on what people do when God removes the collar and unleashes them in an environment that challenges them with a choice between righteous acts and evil deeds. In the words of another poster:
...it is clearly within his power to know how each of us will react and to place us in situations which will allow us to excercise our free agency.
However, if He "knows how each of us will react" then the test is determined in advance.
This seems to contradict the idea that the person has free will. That's why I asked for a clarification from that poster. Do YOU believe that God knows the result of actions of free will, despite the fact that he is not controlling the person during that time of freedom?
If you are truely seeking the Truth you will examine all evidence.
I don't seek "the Truth", as you call it.
When something inspires me to wonder "is there a god-like influence in the universe" then I will examine religion. Until then, I think that God is an irrelevant and unprovable hypothesis.
If you truely feel strongly about what you believe then Christians wouldn't bother you a bit.
Indeed, non-interfering Christians don't bother me a bit.
I encourage you not to make your judgements just because you don't feel right, or there are people pressuring you to think differently.
Oh please... like I need a lesson in critical thinking.
I have learned patience, love, and peace all through God.
I have learned patience, love, and peace through introspection, examples, and possibly other mundane means. I am not deprived of feeling.
When Christians talk about "God"... They are talking about someone that they believe to be omniscient and omnipotent. In other words it is clearly within his power to know how each of us will react and place us in situations which will allow us to excercise our free agency, so that we can learn and grow (assuming we choose correctly:).
This reply doesn't contradict my point; it supports it. If He "knows how each of us will react" then what is the point of testing us? If he is all-knowing and can predict our responses, then why would he throw me into a situation that tests my morality and then make a judgment based on whether I did good or bad (i.e. whether I go to Heavan or Hell)? Nevermind the fact how that particular test interacts with other people's trials.
Perhaps you want to clarify your point?
You might scoff at my beliefs as delusion, that is certainly your right. But to judge my belief system without making the experiment yourself is hardly scientific. Open the scriptures with an open mind, read them, and pray to your Heavenly Father in Christ's name and ask him if he truly exists. Then make your judgements as to what is true.
I rarely "scoff at" or "judge" your belief system. I mostly ignore it, like I dismiss the other religions that I could also try. For a true outsider, Christianity does not seem particularly attractive; there just isn't a good starting point.
I may occasionally sample a religion for whatever value I can extract. For example, I saw a documentary once on the Sherpas(?) of Tibet. They labored for hours creating colorful sand pictures; when they finished, they would blow the sands away until nothing remained. I thought of it as a beautiful analogy for death (sort of a way to practice becoming comfortable with loss). I could empathize with them enough to see that their traditions had value. I didn't have to follow their entire lifestyle or believe their whole religion.
However, I see evidence that the only way for me to experience Christianity is to completely immerse myself in it. Fat chance, given that I am already very comfortable with my more scientific view of the world.
One of my gripes with Christianity is the lack of concensus about which events are forced by God and which events are chosen by people. People thank God for giving them opportunities, as if the world was contrived just to present them with such a decision; then, a person's response to such a challenge is judged as "sinful" or "righteous" or whatever. My observation of Christians is that their partition between "events that God determines" and "events decided by the morality of people" is cloudy; their classification seems to be based more on convenience and context than on principle.
Most people I know that are Christians (including myself) believe that they are no better than other people.
Christians might withhold judgement my morality, but often they still try to convert me. In other words, they still say: I know this and you don't.
That implied insult just advocates their "better-that-thou" status in a different way.
I admit that I am not flawless, but every time I have trusted in God I have been happier.
That is probably the most convincing argument for becoming a Christian. "Try it, have faith, and you will be rewarded." The only problem is that I have good reasoning skills and knowledge of math and statistics. Therefore, I am unlikely to associate perceived rewards with the appropriate moral actions because I usually find easier, more normal explanations.
Indeed, I remember when I learned this concept in my high school freshman biology class. It was one of the cornerstone ideas that changed my athiesm from one form to another.
I used to dispute the Bible (et al.) in terms of contradictions and historical evidence. However, I no longer debate history or the fossil record. There is no need.
Now, I simply ignore the religion as an unprovable, irrelevant story. The scientific requirement that "a hypothesis must be testable" was a key idea that motivated my transition.
Slashdot Mirror
Why is Slashdot ignoring the reports of Rob Malda and Andover's huge illegal campaign contribution to the Democratic party?
Liar.
If Rob's leftist editorial slant wasn't enough, he and his supporters at Andover had to go and illegally contribute US$134 000 to the coffers of Algore.
Common Cause has a searchable database of soft money contributions. Searches for "Andover", "Slashdot", and "Malda" reveal no contributions to any of the parties.
Mainstream sources (www.wired.com) are already reporting about this lapse in campaign finance.
A search of wired turns up no such articles.
Julius Stine, public policy analyst at the Kennedy School of Government was quoted as saying
A search of Kennedy School's website reveals no such person named "Stine" or "Stein".
My school began beta testing Campus Pipeline sometime last fall, and let me tell you it sucks.
This reminds me of my own experience with Channel One. My high school was one of the first to pioneer Channel One in '91. They gave us free televisions in every classroom if 95% of our student body watched a daily program consisting of 8 minutes of "news" and 2 minutes of advertising.
The news was worthless. Complete MTV-style filler, like Bill Nye the Science Guy, but without the science. The advertising was mostly junk products, like Doritos and Snickers. The fact that we were *required* by our teachers to watch the tripe definitely gave me a lower opinion of my school. I really think that it cheated our educational standards by encouraging students to adopt info-tainment as a way to get an education.
One of the pitches for the program was that we could run a tape in the library and have it played in all of the classrooms. That was a nice idea, but we really never used it that way.
I worry that Campus Pipeline is simply another way to sell a low-quality product at a price that is easily underestimated: converting students from thinkers into advanced consumers.
On the other hand, there is a rather small percentage of Americans that are not Christian (less than 10%). Of this minority nearly all of them are quite vocal in their contempt for Christianity.
Common Christian arrogance. Sorry for the flaming, but in this case I fight fire with fire.
I won't speak for the Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, etc., but I can say with confidence that most athiests and agnostics are not seeking a religious fight nor are they even demanding your attention. That lack of obvious visible presence is probably why you underestimate the representation of beliefs other than your own. Hmmm, does it suprise you that Slashdot seems to have an anti-Christian bias?
As for myself, I've been very comfortable with my athiesm for a long time. I engaged in only one serious religious discussion in the past seven years (since I was a college freshman). It was provoked by a dinner companion who commented that the Hare Krishnas across the street were going to Hell; he then spontaneously asked me: "so what do YOU believe?" He gave me the usual "try it, you'll like it" speech as if I hadn't been exposed to Christianity enough already.
Personally, I have had about a dozen friends, coworkers, and relatives who I knew were athiest. All of them were thoughtful, independent, well-educated people. More importantly, none of them were forcefully pushing an agenda. Perhaps I know many more athiests, but I don't notice because the conversation simply doesn't revolve around that sort of thing.
Anyway, I'm not suprised by the lack of athiest efforts to convert people or even to be noticed. Since I doubt that a Christian could convert me, I know by my own example that it is hopeless to try to talk sense into Christians. Furthermore, it is not our religious imperative to convert others in an a friendly effort to save their souls.
Of course, there are many kinds of athiests and agnostics, and certainly some of them will be vocal. For example, they may engage in political action to prevent their rights from being trampled by Christians. School-led Christian prayer is a classic example. Consider that for every "minority" that counteracts school-sponsored Christian prayer, there were many, many individuals who tolerated the Christian arrogance silently. On a more personal note, I participate in Christian activities with my Christian family. I value the interaction with my family and I simply don't want to rock the boat.
In summary, the common Christian myth that athiests are vocal activists results from Christian ignorance and lack of exposure.
Look at the number of Darwin fish you see, for example.
Do you think that wearing a Darwin fish is more intrusive and contemptuous than wearing a cross?
Just like you don't want to hear me talk of Christ I don't particularly want to hear you compare Christians to Spammers.
These are not parallel. You asked why "if you had something that made your life better wouldn't you want to share it with others?" Are you complaining that you got a response? In contrast, the original poster is simply not searching for religion and does not need preachers to bring it to him.
Then why do you blame all Christians every time you meet an annoying one.
I don't think that overgeneralizations are a problem with the original post. Perhaps his post would make more sense if you replaced the word "Christians" with the phrase "Christians who preach to me" which is clearly what the author is referring to. I think that your fixation on that issue has caused you to miss the main idea of his post. Since his point is similar to one that I made earlier, I will paraphrase it by quoting my own earlier words:
"You (Christians) have nothing to offer. That is why you are rejected like a bad spam. You might think that I haven't properly tried the religion and therefore I have no basis for rejecting it. However, I am confident that I can ignore Christianity. I have my reasons. If I smell sour milk, then I don't have to drink it to know it's rotten."
Hence, repeated Christian intrusions are treated like spam.
No. It is not about good and bad people, there is no such thing.
I don't want to debate the petty semantics of "good" and "bad". My point is that there must be some decision procedure for deciding whether people go to Heaven or Hell. Your followup describes that procedure:
Heaven according to Christianity is for those that believe in Jesus Christ as their savior (the one who can wash away their sins) and God as the only true God.
Okay whatever, so some people have x and some don't, and only people with x go to Heaven. The particular choice of x is not the main focus of my writing, so I will ignore the issues that it raises, such as sudden deathbed conversions.
Yes, he sees everything as a line of time, we see only what we are alive for, and how things affect us... He knows we are going to make mistakes, but he allows us to have a free will because he wants us to believe in Him because we know it's the Truth, not because we were forced into believing it.
This is exactly what I wanted you to say :-)
It would be a good exercise for me to write a critique of this philosophy; however, today I want to keep it brief. Let me just say that there are big issues about where the line is drawn between God's will and free will. Every time a football player thanks God for the opportunity to play in the championship game, the player asserts something about that boundary. It seems to be common practice among Christians to make similar assumptions in other circumstances. Sure, you can be humble about it when debating philosophy:
I'd like to say that I don't know everything, and I don't intend on ever thinking I do.
...but in reality, I often see Christians being very arrogant about knowing the difference, despite the complexity of it. I stand by my original comment: "One of my gripes with Christianity is the lack of concensus about which events are forced by God and which events are chosen by people. My observation of Christians is that their partition between 'events that God determines' and 'events decided by the morality of people' is cloudy; their classification seems to be based more on convenience and context than on principle"
Why have the Christians been hit so hard with animocity of solicitation? I see far more solicitators that are trying to take something from you. Christians at least are trying to give you something.
It has nothing to do with your intentions; it's about your product. You have nothing to offer. That is why you are rejected like a bad spam.
You might think that I haven't properly tried the religion and therefore I have no basis for rejecting it. However, I am confident that I can ignore Christianity. I have my reasons. If I smell sour milk, then I don't have to drink it to know it's rotten.
We are tested because that is how we learn.
Learning may occur as a result of the test, but I am still concerned with the Heaven vs. Hell thing. Good people go to Heaven and bad people go to Hell, right? Presumably, the decision is based on what people do when God removes the collar and unleashes them in an environment that challenges them with a choice between righteous acts and evil deeds. In the words of another poster:
However, if He "knows how each of us will react" then the test is determined in advance. This seems to contradict the idea that the person has free will. That's why I asked for a clarification from that poster. Do YOU believe that God knows the result of actions of free will, despite the fact that he is not controlling the person during that time of freedom?
If you are truely seeking the Truth you will examine all evidence.
I don't seek "the Truth", as you call it. When something inspires me to wonder "is there a god-like influence in the universe" then I will examine religion. Until then, I think that God is an irrelevant and unprovable hypothesis.
If you truely feel strongly about what you believe then Christians wouldn't bother you a bit.
Indeed, non-interfering Christians don't bother me a bit.
I encourage you not to make your judgements just because you don't feel right, or there are people pressuring you to think differently.
Oh please... like I need a lesson in critical thinking.
I have learned patience, love, and peace all through God.
I have learned patience, love, and peace through introspection, examples, and possibly other mundane means. I am not deprived of feeling.
When Christians talk about "God"... They are talking about someone that they believe to be omniscient and omnipotent. In other words it is clearly within his power to know how each of us will react and place us in situations which will allow us to excercise our free agency, so that we can learn and grow (assuming we choose correctly :).
This reply doesn't contradict my point; it supports it. If He "knows how each of us will react" then what is the point of testing us? If he is all-knowing and can predict our responses, then why would he throw me into a situation that tests my morality and then make a judgment based on whether I did good or bad (i.e. whether I go to Heavan or Hell)? Nevermind the fact how that particular test interacts with other people's trials.
Perhaps you want to clarify your point?
You might scoff at my beliefs as delusion, that is certainly your right. But to judge my belief system without making the experiment yourself is hardly scientific. Open the scriptures with an open mind, read them, and pray to your Heavenly Father in Christ's name and ask him if he truly exists. Then make your judgements as to what is true.
I rarely "scoff at" or "judge" your belief system. I mostly ignore it, like I dismiss the other religions that I could also try. For a true outsider, Christianity does not seem particularly attractive; there just isn't a good starting point.
I may occasionally sample a religion for whatever value I can extract. For example, I saw a documentary once on the Sherpas(?) of Tibet. They labored for hours creating colorful sand pictures; when they finished, they would blow the sands away until nothing remained. I thought of it as a beautiful analogy for death (sort of a way to practice becoming comfortable with loss). I could empathize with them enough to see that their traditions had value. I didn't have to follow their entire lifestyle or believe their whole religion.
However, I see evidence that the only way for me to experience Christianity is to completely immerse myself in it. Fat chance, given that I am already very comfortable with my more scientific view of the world.
God gave all people an opportunity to choose.
One of my gripes with Christianity is the lack of concensus about which events are forced by God and which events are chosen by people. People thank God for giving them opportunities, as if the world was contrived just to present them with such a decision; then, a person's response to such a challenge is judged as "sinful" or "righteous" or whatever. My observation of Christians is that their partition between "events that God determines" and "events decided by the morality of people" is cloudy; their classification seems to be based more on convenience and context than on principle.
Most people I know that are Christians (including myself) believe that they are no better than other people.
Christians might withhold judgement my morality, but often they still try to convert me. In other words, they still say: I know this and you don't. That implied insult just advocates their "better-that-thou" status in a different way.
I admit that I am not flawless, but every time I have trusted in God I have been happier.
That is probably the most convincing argument for becoming a Christian. "Try it, have faith, and you will be rewarded." The only problem is that I have good reasoning skills and knowledge of math and statistics. Therefore, I am unlikely to associate perceived rewards with the appropriate moral actions because I usually find easier, more normal explanations.
Indeed, I remember when I learned this concept in my high school freshman biology class. It was one of the cornerstone ideas that changed my athiesm from one form to another.
I used to dispute the Bible (et al.) in terms of contradictions and historical evidence. However, I no longer debate history or the fossil record. There is no need.
Now, I simply ignore the religion as an unprovable, irrelevant story. The scientific requirement that "a hypothesis must be testable" was a key idea that motivated my transition.