Then you just get into the old macro-micro evolution debate. They'll accept that there can be changes, but they'll claim that one "kind" never changes into another "kind". So basically they're accepting the mechanisms of evolution
If they understand things well enough to be able to argue that competently I'd say the teacher's job is done: they clearly understand the basics of evolution even if they refuse to believe it. Once you get to that point you are arguing against an entirely irrationally held disbelief and so you need a psychiatrist not a teacher.
Such arguments don't usually come from the minds of the students, but from their parents or their church. They are given them specifically for the purpose of trying to make a teacher look stupid, and thus reinforce their belief in their religion, as well as either reinforcing the similar beliefs in other students, or causing them to question the validity of science if it can be disputed so easily. If the teacher doesn't well and truly understand what they're teaching, then they are likely to fall prey to that tactic.
I think the point is more that if a science teacher can't stand behind the findings of science (i.e. that evolution is correct) then their students are more likely to have less respect for science and/or not pay as much attention to it as a subject.
No offense, but how is a student less likely to respect science because of a theory they don't know about much because they weren't taught it?
If they're not being taught something as basic as evolution, then there's probably a serious deficiency in the curriculum and/or the science teachers. Either could cause students to lose respect or interest for the subject.
Hmm, not really that interested about this conversation (having seen, heard & spoken most arguments myself) but I have always wanted to ask, and be answered to, where exactly does it say that God (note to self: uses "He") cannot "really" be tested or proven? I mean, ok as a theory or perhaps just part of someones belief system, but above that, I don't see bible claiming this or that about whether God could be tested or not, yet I often have heard this argument...
God, which religion describes as being a supernatural entity, cannot be tested for because science only deals with the natural world. Anything that operates outside the laws of nature and the universe is, by definition, outside of the realm of science.
I've managed to work out that you weren't talking about religion but popularist creationism.
On a different note I find it amusing the anti-religionist scientists (and I don't call you one) dream and hope of mans expansion across the galaxy, planetary engineering and so forth, but (and given the age of the universe) don't imagine that we are the result of someone's efforts in those same endeavour; i.e. maybe god did create (organise) the world.
However I think the 7 thousand years stuff is unjustifiable, even from the bible, I don't understand how religionists get the idea that the bible claims the earth is young.
It's not that they can't imagine it. There's plenty of science fiction out there that explores the idea. It's that there isn't any evidence for it, therefore such stories are not scientific and should not be taught as science. When you look at questions about how the universe was created, science doesn't have the answers for that. If you want to just accept some made-up answers about it, that's fine. Just don't pretend they're science, or that they hold any sort of validity.
But do you have a problem with them teaching the history of evolution? In particular, that before Darwin it was believed that creatures were essentially created the way they currently exist. Without looking at the particulars of their data it could be that teachers saying 'here's what ID teaches and here's why it is wrong according to the evidence we have' could be lumped into that 72% of teachers teaching ID. Competing theories should be taught, even if they're crazy, because if we aren't willing to understand a different viewpoint there is no way we can competently argue against it. Hell, we even teach string theory to physicists, and there is not a shred of proof that that model is correct.
It isn't a competing theory. It isn't science by any stretch of the imagination. Non-scientific "theories" have no place in the science classroom. If you're going to teach that in a science class, then you've opened the door to teaching any crazy idea that someone dreams up. It simply doesn't belong there. If their parents want to teach them that stuff, then they can send them to Sunday school to learn it.
The way to deal with it is to tell the student that whether or not they accept evolution...
There is an even better way which points out that really they probably believe in evolution too. Just ask them whether they were worried about the swine flu outbreak last year or the bird flu a few years before. Assuming that they respond that these were valid causes for some concern ask them why because, if there is no evolution, then there will be no change in infectious diseases either so there is nothing to be concerned about. Then let them think about that for a while.
While many people may profess otherwise when push comes to shove they do believe in science. This latest science-religion controvesy is utter nonsense. Science and religion have coexisted well for hundreds of years. Yes, with occasional conflicts - but lets not forget that a lot of science was actually conducted by religion early on. It only seems to be recently that a few idiots on the fringe of religions seem to have garnered undue support...which is probably not unrelated to the declining educational standards in schools.
Then you just get into the old macro-micro evolution debate. They'll accept that there can be changes, but they'll claim that one "kind" never changes into another "kind". So basically they're accepting the mechanisms of evolution, but refusing to accept common descent.
I'm not going to bother with a point by point response here. You seem unwilling to divulge any real explanation for why you believe what you believe. That much does go counter to normal Christian behavior, as most feel compelled to spread the good news, and often consider it a commandment from God. You don't wish to, so that's fine. You talk about the wonder of everything around us, and why we're here, and all those sorts of big questions that science doesn't address. Sure, I'm with you on that. I wonder too. Then you somehow make the leap from "wow, life is amazing, sucks that it has to end, seems like there should be more of a point to it" to "the Christian God must exist, there is an eternal afterlife, and somehow what we do in our incredibly brief time here matters and will determine whether we get eternal reward or punishment when we are judged."
THAT is what I can't fathom.
Praying and seeking is simply wishing and then reading intention into what you see around you. I could do that all day with any sort of deity in mind and find things that I could interpret as signs or interventions from that deity. It doesn't make it true. It just makes you develop bizarre explanations for why things happen, ultimately falling back on some variation of "it's all part of $deity's plan, we can't know the mind of $deity. Everything happens for a reason." And of course such reasoning could apply just as easily to God or the Invisible Pink Unicorn.
So no, I'm not going to bother with that. It's pointless and often has the nasty side-effect of allowing for the rationalization of all sorts of behavior. I'll continue to wonder, probably until the day I die. Some people have to have an answer, and will settle for a wrong answer that they can pretend is right, as that's easier for them to cope with than no answer.
There's no real explanation of what it means, only guesses derived from interpretations of books that represent other's guesses.
Oh, but that of course doesn't apply when you declare God evil because of a story about a torture victim burning in hell because of suicide. LOL! next.
Uhh, no. I wasn't referring to the suicide story, but the earlier post about horrific acts being perpetrated against children. I don't believe I ever referred to the suicide story in my posts. Try again.
Because there's no evidence of a long-run.
There's definately "the next trillion years"? Or do you not believe tomorrow exists until it's there? Huh?
Are you being intentionally obtuse, or did you really just not comprehend what I was saying? Of course time will continue to march on for longer than we can probably comprehend. I'm not claiming that any part of my mind, whether you call it a soul or whatever, will be around to see it once I'm dead. You seem to be claiming that, without a whit of evidence to back it up.
That you can claim that the only form of existence that we know of is inconsequential because you happen to think that there's something else that comes after and lasts for all eternity, but have not the slightest shred of evidence for, just shows how out of touch with reality you are.
Heh, an ad-hominem plus again actively misreading what I actually said doesn't really help.
You see, our existence is inconsequential even if there is no afterlife/eternity/whatever. Of course I can't KNOW that, but right now either heat death seems most likely, right? So while you can't even follow this simple discussion, I suggest you reserve judgement about how in touch with reality. It just makes you seem desperate to put a label on me to get this over with.
Besides, since you haven't offered a single argument yet why our existence IS consequential, why would I need to prove it otherwise? Our existance is meaningless by default, scientifically speaking.
Our lives may be inconsequential to the universe, but they aren't inconsequential to us. Well, I won't speak for you, but many people have found plenty of meaning in their own lives, and can accept that as enough because there's no reason to believe there's anything else, even if we wish there was.
And yes, IF you start speaking about the Christian image of God, then you can't just pick one part and say "hah! so evil!", but outright refuse to acknowledge the rest that goes along with it. That's just daft, but then so is this whole article so I figure it goes with the territory.
Which Christian image of God? There are so terribly many to choose from! Even if we assume there is a God such as you describe, and there is an eternal afterlife, what the hell could the point of this life possibly be? A being willing to reward some and condemn others for all eternity based on what they do in a span of time so utterly insignificant, and filled with so much chaos and conflicting information and views? That's your God? Really? And you're good with that?
Some people live very short lives, filled with fear, living in squalor, until someone finally ends them violently, or they die of some disease that would be completely preventable in most other places. At the same time, others are living lives of comfort and security. Yet you believe that this is somehow all just a test to determine what our eternal comeuppance will be. That's the thing that I'll probably never understand. How do you manage to believe something so bizarre without any evidence at all, let alone any good evidence?
Of course to believe in the sort of God that you believe in, being out of touch with reality is pretty much a requirement.
You have no idea what I believe in, but of course, if you wa
Regarding your last paragraph about multiple incompatible religions, it is only true if one assumes a single, non-schizophrenic, god. Otherwise, each could be true.
However, until science proves the necessity of god, I'll go with the infinite in time and space super universe as as simplifying assumption.
I don't know of any religions that believe their god is crazy, so if that were the case, it would show that they were wrong anyway.
But you can't explain why facts are the way they are.
Science can explain how things happen but it has trouble truly explaining why. Science helps define those natural facts, defines how it is they all operate within each other, defines how it is that we perceive them, but all in all, science can't explain why it all is the way it is. It's a bit tricky to wrap your head around, I know.
The answer "goddidit" is not particularly satisfying or explanatory either. Dreaming up stories about why God does things is probably comforting to some, and useful to others, but it doesn't answer anything either.
No, it definitely doesn't imply action. If I saw such a thing happening, and did nothing to intervene, but made a judgement that the perpetrator was a horrible person, would any sane person consider that taking action?
Then read up on what "judging" means in *this* context.
There's no real explanation of what it means, only guesses derived from interpretations of books that represent other's guesses.
Allowing a child, or anyone, to suffer such things is evil.
Why? If you know that in the long run they will not suffer, why does it matter? If you don't even begin to take "eternity blah blah" seriously, then this discussion really has no point.
Because there's no evidence of a long-run. That you can claim that the only form of existence that we know of is inconsequential because you happen to think that there's something else that comes after and lasts for all eternity, but have not the slightest shred of evidence for, just shows how out of touch with reality you are. Of course to believe in the sort of God that you believe in, being out of touch with reality is pretty much a requirement.
Well, "judging" kinda implies action, you know? And yes, compared to eternity suffering a few ills here is *nothing*.
No, it definitely doesn't imply action. If I saw such a thing happening, and did nothing to intervene, but made a judgement that the perpetrator was a horrible person, would any sane person consider that taking action? Allowing a child, or anyone, to suffer such things is evil. If it isn't then that word has no real meaning. Compared to eternity, blah blah blah... you could say anything there and it would be just as meaningless.
I'm saying God chose not to stop it, but instead judge it... which kind of is the same IF you take eternity into account and not just "what happens here".
So God allows horrible things like that to happen, even though he could prevent it, but that's ok because he judges it? That's twisted.
Kirkegaard made an argument of this type in Fear and Trembling, and although many other philosophers disagree with it, they wouldn't label it "crazy". Kirkegaard's arguments are too formidable to be dismissed out of hand, but deserve close scrutiny before a response.
If that argument is true, then God's morality is completely alien to our own, and we have to seriously question why we should even consider accepting anything that is purportedly the word of God. To tell us that such things are evil, and then to allow them to happen to people, despite having the ability to prevent it, must be evil as well.
as long as they don't say that they're really really sorry in the mean time and really mean it.... and if he does punish them they go to the same place as any of their victims who committed suicide to escape the torture and rapes.
so basically your problem with God is that it's not vengeful enough? the whole "mercy" thing puts you off? and based on what? made up stories, sadistic ones at that. your image of God is evil. that's not God though.
So you're saying that horrible things like that never happen to children? Or are you saying that God is powerless to stop it? Or are you saying that God chooses not to stop it? What exactly are you trying to say?
or perhaps the number one thing the government could do to prevent leaks in future would be to... i don't know... *NOT DO ILLEGAL SHIT*
You make it sound like you got 250k pages of criminal reports when probably a single digit percentage, at best, was a violation of federal law.
Now perhaps you live in an ivory tower and think that it's a heinous crime for Clinton to have her people do basic human intelligence gathering, among other "nasty revelations."
I have news for you. Most of Europe and Asia does that shit right back to us. Foreign affairs have been dirty ever since two dissimilar tribes first met and had to share the same savannah or part of the fertile crescent.
If you cannot live with that, then you need to just ignore the news because there is no way for the federal government to be utterly above board in its foreign dealings and not have the American people lose out.
You are aware that they only released 2% of the documents that were leaked, right?
This is just it though; so many vocal slashdotters-- and Assange-- would just as soon there be NO secrets at all. I had some advocating the release of nuke launch codes (nevermind that they may well be at defaults) or Obama's email passwords, etc; I havent come up with something that said crowd would not be happy to have leaked.
This is why I stated "they dont understand the real world"; this world where no secrets are needed does not exist.
Not "no secrets", but also not secrets about illegal acts or things kept secret that really shouldn't be. An informed populace is essential to democracy. When we don't really know what our government is doing in our name, because so much is kept secret, we can't make informed decisions. Yeah, a lot of what was leaked was inconsequential, or just embarrassing, but there was a lot of stuff in there that was either hidden for no good reason, or covered up and lied about as well. So just grabbing everything and dumping it probably seemed like the easiest way to go for the person leaking the info. As for WikiLeaks, I think they did the right thing in collaborating with the news agencies to remove the truly harmful info. I think the US government should have reviewed it as well, but they were apparently more concerned with declaring their authority than protecting sources.
As for your straw man about "so many vocal Slashdotters-- and Assange--", it's demonstrably false in the case of Assange, as they only released a small portion of the leaked data, and only after reviewing with news agencies and redacting things they believed would put lives in danger. So it wasn't a free-for-all, dump everything on the net type of thing that you are accusing them of. As for the slashdotters, you could find a bunch of loudmouths here to support practically any position. That means nothing at all and you can't extrapolate anything from it.
Some are less ignorant and misinformed than others. Scientists in particular are required to be informed and not ignorant in order to do their job. Politicians are required to be misinformed and ignorant in order to serve their masters (hint, the masters are not the people).
Scientists may be informed in their field, but they are likely ignorant about many other things, just like everyone else. This is why direct democracy, as we've seen California experimenting with, is a bad idea. On any given subject up for referendum, 90%+ of the populace is probably ignorant about it and will make poor decisions. With representative democracy, the representatives can consult with experts in the appropriate fields when making the decisions. Then you just have to try to prevent special interests from hijacking things, which is what happens today because our election system is so screwed up.
About two weeks ago a motorcyclist with a helmet cam was arrested when he posted a traffic stop on youtube. The cop had pulled a gun on the citizen w/o identifying himself AS a cop (he was plain clothes), and then the Police Bureau arrested the man after the Chief saw the video online. It seems Maryland is turning into a tyranny.
The motorcyclist was Anthony Graber, and the incident happened in March. Charges against him were DROPPED on Sep 27th.
The fact that they brought charges against him at all is ludicrous though. Why should there be charges against someone for six months for posting a video taken in a public place?
If Obama wanted an easy out he could have had it - the courts were about to throw DADT out the window, and his administration begged them not to. If he just stood back and did nothing the policy would be gone today.
The cynical side of me thinks that DADT is kept around so that the D's can keep campaigning on it, just like how abortion was kept around so that the R's could keep campaigning on that. If politicians actually cared about these kinds of issues you'd see them do something about - there have been plenty of times in the last decade where one party controlled the white house and both houses of congress, and that applies to either party.
The military wanted it to be done by Congress rather than the courts, so that's how they were trying to do it.
These are sideline issues to politicians - useful for drumming up supporters on election day, but nothing they really care about.
Sideline issue or not, it was something that he campaigned on, so I suppose it's good that he was trying to deliver on it. Guess now that it's done, it won't be an issue for him next election.
Then you have to abide by professional rules of conduct, like not calling your underlings "bitches", "Niggers", or "fags". at least, once they get out of boot camp.
You have to admit, vocabulary like "that's gay" is far more common among straight men than "you nigger" is among non-black men. Kids grow up calling things gay, they don't grow up calling each other niggers. It's a different part of our culture and treating it the same as racial issues doesn't make sense.
It wasn't back when black men were first allowed to serve. Back then gay didn't mean what it does now, and nigger was in common usage. The sooner the term "gay" as a derogatory term for practically anything leaves common usage, the better.
I don't support hazing and all that, gay or straight. I'm talking about speech issues and specifically what people might say on their down time amongst themselves.
Over time our military is becoming more and more rigid with respect to restrictions on soldiers' behavior. That's undeniable. Whether this is just another minor step on the ladder or a major one with plenty of unforeseen consequences remains to be seen.
All of which you could say about integration of blacks or women into the military as well. I don't see how it's any different at all. Yeah, a lot of people had a problem with it. Doesn't matter. They're there to do a job, and some of the most important things those kids that join up need to learn are discipline and respect. No, it's not ok to behave in a juvenile way or use juvenile and offensive language regarding your peers. No, it's not ok to disrespect people because they're different. Kids that do that stuff need some education, and the military is probably the right place for it if they're like that already. If that's being "rigid", then I'm all for it.
This reminds me of one thing: Why are posts tagged? Can we include posts based on tags? Exclude posts based on tags?
I never actually realized why we have them, but posts keep getting tagged. *shrug*
If we can exclude posts on tags, I'm pretty sure filtering out everything "wikileaks" would work here.
I think the tags are mainly used for searching right now. Would be nice if you could use them for filtering as well. As for me, I don't bother to filter anything, as it's simple enough to just skip over posts I'm not interested in. Some people have difficulty with that.
Braid (the leading title this year) is supposedly good. It has won awards for its gameplay. The first time I came across Braid was at last year's Penny Arcade Expo in Boston and the person talking about it had good things to say.
I liked the gameplay of Braid. The story was cringe-worthy though. Sounded like something written by a 16 year-old.
No, its not
Executive Order 13526 Section 1.1(4)(c)
Classified information shall not be declassified automatically as a result of any unauthorized disclosure of identical or similar information.
Unauthorized disclosure is one thing. It seems like being published by the NY Times and several other major international newspapers is something else altogether. You'd kinda think there might be some distinction made.
Slashdot Mirror
Then you just get into the old macro-micro evolution debate. They'll accept that there can be changes, but they'll claim that one "kind" never changes into another "kind". So basically they're accepting the mechanisms of evolution
If they understand things well enough to be able to argue that competently I'd say the teacher's job is done: they clearly understand the basics of evolution even if they refuse to believe it. Once you get to that point you are arguing against an entirely irrationally held disbelief and so you need a psychiatrist not a teacher.
Such arguments don't usually come from the minds of the students, but from their parents or their church. They are given them specifically for the purpose of trying to make a teacher look stupid, and thus reinforce their belief in their religion, as well as either reinforcing the similar beliefs in other students, or causing them to question the validity of science if it can be disputed so easily. If the teacher doesn't well and truly understand what they're teaching, then they are likely to fall prey to that tactic.
I think the point is more that if a science teacher can't stand behind the findings of science (i.e. that evolution is correct) then their students are more likely to have less respect for science and/or not pay as much attention to it as a subject.
No offense, but how is a student less likely to respect science because of a theory they don't know about much because they weren't taught it?
If they're not being taught something as basic as evolution, then there's probably a serious deficiency in the curriculum and/or the science teachers. Either could cause students to lose respect or interest for the subject.
When any of you can accurately understand the scientific arguments for creationism, I will be happy to listen to arguments against them.
When creationism actually has scientific arguments to discuss, I'd be happy to discuss them. Whatever. You're trolling right?
Hmm, not really that interested about this conversation (having seen, heard & spoken most arguments myself) but I have always wanted to ask, and be answered to, where exactly does it say that God (note to self: uses "He") cannot "really" be tested or proven? I mean, ok as a theory or perhaps just part of someones belief system, but above that, I don't see bible claiming this or that about whether God could be tested or not, yet I often have heard this argument...
God, which religion describes as being a supernatural entity, cannot be tested for because science only deals with the natural world. Anything that operates outside the laws of nature and the universe is, by definition, outside of the realm of science.
I've managed to work out that you weren't talking about religion but popularist creationism.
On a different note I find it amusing the anti-religionist scientists (and I don't call you one) dream and hope of mans expansion across the galaxy, planetary engineering and so forth, but (and given the age of the universe) don't imagine that we are the result of someone's efforts in those same endeavour; i.e. maybe god did create (organise) the world.
However I think the 7 thousand years stuff is unjustifiable, even from the bible, I don't understand how religionists get the idea that the bible claims the earth is young.
It's not that they can't imagine it. There's plenty of science fiction out there that explores the idea. It's that there isn't any evidence for it, therefore such stories are not scientific and should not be taught as science. When you look at questions about how the universe was created, science doesn't have the answers for that. If you want to just accept some made-up answers about it, that's fine. Just don't pretend they're science, or that they hold any sort of validity.
But do you have a problem with them teaching the history of evolution? In particular, that before Darwin it was believed that creatures were essentially created the way they currently exist. Without looking at the particulars of their data it could be that teachers saying 'here's what ID teaches and here's why it is wrong according to the evidence we have' could be lumped into that 72% of teachers teaching ID. Competing theories should be taught, even if they're crazy, because if we aren't willing to understand a different viewpoint there is no way we can competently argue against it. Hell, we even teach string theory to physicists, and there is not a shred of proof that that model is correct.
It isn't a competing theory. It isn't science by any stretch of the imagination. Non-scientific "theories" have no place in the science classroom. If you're going to teach that in a science class, then you've opened the door to teaching any crazy idea that someone dreams up. It simply doesn't belong there. If their parents want to teach them that stuff, then they can send them to Sunday school to learn it.
The way to deal with it is to tell the student that whether or not they accept evolution...
There is an even better way which points out that really they probably believe in evolution too. Just ask them whether they were worried about the swine flu outbreak last year or the bird flu a few years before. Assuming that they respond that these were valid causes for some concern ask them why because, if there is no evolution, then there will be no change in infectious diseases either so there is nothing to be concerned about. Then let them think about that for a while.
While many people may profess otherwise when push comes to shove they do believe in science. This latest science-religion controvesy is utter nonsense. Science and religion have coexisted well for hundreds of years. Yes, with occasional conflicts - but lets not forget that a lot of science was actually conducted by religion early on. It only seems to be recently that a few idiots on the fringe of religions seem to have garnered undue support...which is probably not unrelated to the declining educational standards in schools.
Then you just get into the old macro-micro evolution debate. They'll accept that there can be changes, but they'll claim that one "kind" never changes into another "kind". So basically they're accepting the mechanisms of evolution, but refusing to accept common descent.
I'm not going to bother with a point by point response here. You seem unwilling to divulge any real explanation for why you believe what you believe. That much does go counter to normal Christian behavior, as most feel compelled to spread the good news, and often consider it a commandment from God. You don't wish to, so that's fine. You talk about the wonder of everything around us, and why we're here, and all those sorts of big questions that science doesn't address. Sure, I'm with you on that. I wonder too. Then you somehow make the leap from "wow, life is amazing, sucks that it has to end, seems like there should be more of a point to it" to "the Christian God must exist, there is an eternal afterlife, and somehow what we do in our incredibly brief time here matters and will determine whether we get eternal reward or punishment when we are judged."
THAT is what I can't fathom.
Praying and seeking is simply wishing and then reading intention into what you see around you. I could do that all day with any sort of deity in mind and find things that I could interpret as signs or interventions from that deity. It doesn't make it true. It just makes you develop bizarre explanations for why things happen, ultimately falling back on some variation of "it's all part of $deity's plan, we can't know the mind of $deity. Everything happens for a reason." And of course such reasoning could apply just as easily to God or the Invisible Pink Unicorn.
So no, I'm not going to bother with that. It's pointless and often has the nasty side-effect of allowing for the rationalization of all sorts of behavior. I'll continue to wonder, probably until the day I die. Some people have to have an answer, and will settle for a wrong answer that they can pretend is right, as that's easier for them to cope with than no answer.
Oh, but that of course doesn't apply when you declare God evil because of a story about a torture victim burning in hell because of suicide. LOL! next.
Uhh, no. I wasn't referring to the suicide story, but the earlier post about horrific acts being perpetrated against children. I don't believe I ever referred to the suicide story in my posts. Try again.
Because there's no evidence of a long-run.
There's definately "the next trillion years"? Or do you not believe tomorrow exists until it's there? Huh?
Are you being intentionally obtuse, or did you really just not comprehend what I was saying? Of course time will continue to march on for longer than we can probably comprehend. I'm not claiming that any part of my mind, whether you call it a soul or whatever, will be around to see it once I'm dead. You seem to be claiming that, without a whit of evidence to back it up.
Heh, an ad-hominem plus again actively misreading what I actually said doesn't really help. You see, our existence is inconsequential even if there is no afterlife/eternity/whatever. Of course I can't KNOW that, but right now either heat death seems most likely, right? So while you can't even follow this simple discussion, I suggest you reserve judgement about how in touch with reality. It just makes you seem desperate to put a label on me to get this over with. Besides, since you haven't offered a single argument yet why our existence IS consequential, why would I need to prove it otherwise? Our existance is meaningless by default, scientifically speaking.
Our lives may be inconsequential to the universe, but they aren't inconsequential to us. Well, I won't speak for you, but many people have found plenty of meaning in their own lives, and can accept that as enough because there's no reason to believe there's anything else, even if we wish there was.
And yes, IF you start speaking about the Christian image of God, then you can't just pick one part and say "hah! so evil!", but outright refuse to acknowledge the rest that goes along with it. That's just daft, but then so is this whole article so I figure it goes with the territory.
Which Christian image of God? There are so terribly many to choose from! Even if we assume there is a God such as you describe, and there is an eternal afterlife, what the hell could the point of this life possibly be? A being willing to reward some and condemn others for all eternity based on what they do in a span of time so utterly insignificant, and filled with so much chaos and conflicting information and views? That's your God? Really? And you're good with that?
Some people live very short lives, filled with fear, living in squalor, until someone finally ends them violently, or they die of some disease that would be completely preventable in most other places. At the same time, others are living lives of comfort and security. Yet you believe that this is somehow all just a test to determine what our eternal comeuppance will be. That's the thing that I'll probably never understand. How do you manage to believe something so bizarre without any evidence at all, let alone any good evidence?
You have no idea what I believe in, but of course, if you wa
Regarding your last paragraph about multiple incompatible religions, it is only true if one assumes a single, non-schizophrenic, god. Otherwise, each could be true.
However, until science proves the necessity of god, I'll go with the infinite in time and space super universe as as simplifying assumption.
I don't know of any religions that believe their god is crazy, so if that were the case, it would show that they were wrong anyway.
But you can't explain why facts are the way they are.
Science can explain how things happen but it has trouble truly explaining why. Science helps define those natural facts, defines how it is they all operate within each other, defines how it is that we perceive them, but all in all, science can't explain why it all is the way it is. It's a bit tricky to wrap your head around, I know.
The answer "goddidit" is not particularly satisfying or explanatory either. Dreaming up stories about why God does things is probably comforting to some, and useful to others, but it doesn't answer anything either.
Then read up on what "judging" means in *this* context.
There's no real explanation of what it means, only guesses derived from interpretations of books that represent other's guesses.
Why? If you know that in the long run they will not suffer, why does it matter? If you don't even begin to take "eternity blah blah" seriously, then this discussion really has no point.
Because there's no evidence of a long-run. That you can claim that the only form of existence that we know of is inconsequential because you happen to think that there's something else that comes after and lasts for all eternity, but have not the slightest shred of evidence for, just shows how out of touch with reality you are. Of course to believe in the sort of God that you believe in, being out of touch with reality is pretty much a requirement.
Well, "judging" kinda implies action, you know? And yes, compared to eternity suffering a few ills here is *nothing*.
No, it definitely doesn't imply action. If I saw such a thing happening, and did nothing to intervene, but made a judgement that the perpetrator was a horrible person, would any sane person consider that taking action? Allowing a child, or anyone, to suffer such things is evil. If it isn't then that word has no real meaning. Compared to eternity, blah blah blah... you could say anything there and it would be just as meaningless.
I'm saying God chose not to stop it, but instead judge it... which kind of is the same IF you take eternity into account and not just "what happens here".
So God allows horrible things like that to happen, even though he could prevent it, but that's ok because he judges it? That's twisted.
Kirkegaard made an argument of this type in Fear and Trembling, and although many other philosophers disagree with it, they wouldn't label it "crazy". Kirkegaard's arguments are too formidable to be dismissed out of hand, but deserve close scrutiny before a response.
If that argument is true, then God's morality is completely alien to our own, and we have to seriously question why we should even consider accepting anything that is purportedly the word of God. To tell us that such things are evil, and then to allow them to happen to people, despite having the ability to prevent it, must be evil as well.
so basically your problem with God is that it's not vengeful enough? the whole "mercy" thing puts you off? and based on what? made up stories, sadistic ones at that. your image of God is evil. that's not God though.
So you're saying that horrible things like that never happen to children? Or are you saying that God is powerless to stop it? Or are you saying that God chooses not to stop it? What exactly are you trying to say?
You make it sound like you got 250k pages of criminal reports when probably a single digit percentage, at best, was a violation of federal law.
Now perhaps you live in an ivory tower and think that it's a heinous crime for Clinton to have her people do basic human intelligence gathering, among other "nasty revelations."
I have news for you. Most of Europe and Asia does that shit right back to us. Foreign affairs have been dirty ever since two dissimilar tribes first met and had to share the same savannah or part of the fertile crescent.
If you cannot live with that, then you need to just ignore the news because there is no way for the federal government to be utterly above board in its foreign dealings and not have the American people lose out.
You are aware that they only released 2% of the documents that were leaked, right?
This is just it though; so many vocal slashdotters-- and Assange-- would just as soon there be NO secrets at all. I had some advocating the release of nuke launch codes (nevermind that they may well be at defaults) or Obama's email passwords, etc; I havent come up with something that said crowd would not be happy to have leaked.
This is why I stated "they dont understand the real world"; this world where no secrets are needed does not exist.
Not "no secrets", but also not secrets about illegal acts or things kept secret that really shouldn't be. An informed populace is essential to democracy. When we don't really know what our government is doing in our name, because so much is kept secret, we can't make informed decisions. Yeah, a lot of what was leaked was inconsequential, or just embarrassing, but there was a lot of stuff in there that was either hidden for no good reason, or covered up and lied about as well. So just grabbing everything and dumping it probably seemed like the easiest way to go for the person leaking the info. As for WikiLeaks, I think they did the right thing in collaborating with the news agencies to remove the truly harmful info. I think the US government should have reviewed it as well, but they were apparently more concerned with declaring their authority than protecting sources.
As for your straw man about "so many vocal Slashdotters-- and Assange--", it's demonstrably false in the case of Assange, as they only released a small portion of the leaked data, and only after reviewing with news agencies and redacting things they believed would put lives in danger. So it wasn't a free-for-all, dump everything on the net type of thing that you are accusing them of. As for the slashdotters, you could find a bunch of loudmouths here to support practically any position. That means nothing at all and you can't extrapolate anything from it.
Some are less ignorant and misinformed than others. Scientists in particular are required to be informed and not ignorant in order to do their job. Politicians are required to be misinformed and ignorant in order to serve their masters (hint, the masters are not the people).
Scientists may be informed in their field, but they are likely ignorant about many other things, just like everyone else. This is why direct democracy, as we've seen California experimenting with, is a bad idea. On any given subject up for referendum, 90%+ of the populace is probably ignorant about it and will make poor decisions. With representative democracy, the representatives can consult with experts in the appropriate fields when making the decisions. Then you just have to try to prevent special interests from hijacking things, which is what happens today because our election system is so screwed up.
About two weeks ago a motorcyclist with a helmet cam was arrested when he posted a traffic stop on youtube. The cop had pulled a gun on the citizen w/o identifying himself AS a cop (he was plain clothes), and then the Police Bureau arrested the man after the Chief saw the video online. It seems Maryland is turning into a tyranny.
The motorcyclist was Anthony Graber, and the incident happened in March. Charges against him were DROPPED on Sep 27th.
The fact that they brought charges against him at all is ludicrous though. Why should there be charges against someone for six months for posting a video taken in a public place?
If Obama wanted an easy out he could have had it - the courts were about to throw DADT out the window, and his administration begged them not to. If he just stood back and did nothing the policy would be gone today.
The cynical side of me thinks that DADT is kept around so that the D's can keep campaigning on it, just like how abortion was kept around so that the R's could keep campaigning on that. If politicians actually cared about these kinds of issues you'd see them do something about - there have been plenty of times in the last decade where one party controlled the white house and both houses of congress, and that applies to either party.
The military wanted it to be done by Congress rather than the courts, so that's how they were trying to do it.
These are sideline issues to politicians - useful for drumming up supporters on election day, but nothing they really care about.
Sideline issue or not, it was something that he campaigned on, so I suppose it's good that he was trying to deliver on it. Guess now that it's done, it won't be an issue for him next election.
Then you have to abide by professional rules of conduct, like not calling your underlings "bitches", "Niggers", or "fags". at least, once they get out of boot camp.
You have to admit, vocabulary like "that's gay" is far more common among straight men than "you nigger" is among non-black men. Kids grow up calling things gay, they don't grow up calling each other niggers. It's a different part of our culture and treating it the same as racial issues doesn't make sense.
It wasn't back when black men were first allowed to serve. Back then gay didn't mean what it does now, and nigger was in common usage. The sooner the term "gay" as a derogatory term for practically anything leaves common usage, the better.
I don't support hazing and all that, gay or straight. I'm talking about speech issues and specifically what people might say on their down time amongst themselves.
Over time our military is becoming more and more rigid with respect to restrictions on soldiers' behavior. That's undeniable. Whether this is just another minor step on the ladder or a major one with plenty of unforeseen consequences remains to be seen.
All of which you could say about integration of blacks or women into the military as well. I don't see how it's any different at all. Yeah, a lot of people had a problem with it. Doesn't matter. They're there to do a job, and some of the most important things those kids that join up need to learn are discipline and respect. No, it's not ok to behave in a juvenile way or use juvenile and offensive language regarding your peers. No, it's not ok to disrespect people because they're different. Kids that do that stuff need some education, and the military is probably the right place for it if they're like that already. If that's being "rigid", then I'm all for it.
This reminds me of one thing: Why are posts tagged? Can we include posts based on tags? Exclude posts based on tags? I never actually realized why we have them, but posts keep getting tagged. *shrug*
If we can exclude posts on tags, I'm pretty sure filtering out everything "wikileaks" would work here.
I think the tags are mainly used for searching right now. Would be nice if you could use them for filtering as well. As for me, I don't bother to filter anything, as it's simple enough to just skip over posts I'm not interested in. Some people have difficulty with that.
Braid (the leading title this year) is supposedly good. It has won awards for its gameplay. The first time I came across Braid was at last year's Penny Arcade Expo in Boston and the person talking about it had good things to say.
I liked the gameplay of Braid. The story was cringe-worthy though. Sounded like something written by a 16 year-old.
No, its not Executive Order 13526 Section 1.1(4)(c) Classified information shall not be declassified automatically as a result of any unauthorized disclosure of identical or similar information.
Unauthorized disclosure is one thing. It seems like being published by the NY Times and several other major international newspapers is something else altogether. You'd kinda think there might be some distinction made.