Yes, it does. The exchange went from "people should hold good stock" (1) to "airline stock is good" (2) implying "(1) is not true, because the good airline stock crashed today" (3) without ever bringing evidence for (2).
If (2) were true -- and I'd argue that it's not -- then (1) would be begging the question to resolve the apparent contradiction.
Begs the question: Is airline stock really a sound investment?
Re:you can't stop the doomsayers
on
LHC Success!
·
· Score: 1
That's still a clutch, because your browser (better yet: the text control of your widget set) could convert your input to the actual characters on the fly. In any case, the original poster apparently has a German keyboard. To suggest that a non-English speaker has to input code to write a character that's right there on his keyboard is preposterous.
Re:you can't stop the doomsayers
on
LHC Success!
·
· Score: 1
The 1970s called, they want their SGML entities back.
Seriously, why recommend these clutches that only fix a symptom and that nobody but geeks understand? A website that doesn't understand Unicode is simply broken.
Disclaimer: I just debugged a problem with Unicode passing over HTTP and then Java RMI and I still haven't found a solution that works on Linux and OS X. Argh!
either that fine is new or they enforce it selectivly, because a few years ago I waited almost a year before registering my new address with the meldestelle as it is called in germany, and they didn't say anything. iirc, the law states that you have to register within 14 days.
btw, since a year or so you can register your residence online.
I've already answered your question, but if you like, I'll do it again: The person sneaking into a theater is "merely" tresspassing and not stealing anything. Is that really so difficult to grasp?
I would consider it "cheating", but fortunately cheating is not yet illegal. (Otherwise every student would be a criminal.) And cheating is not necessarily objectionable or immoral, it depends on the circumstances. Cheating in school certainly is not immoral.
The person that's sneaking in is not stealing anything. He is, at most, trespassing.
Different analogy: A band has fenced in a section of a city park and sells tickets for the event. I can't sneak in (trespassing), but I can certainly listen to the music from my apartment window, if the location provides it.
Why did this giant straw man get an Interesting mod? All the grandparent is talking about is reducing the externalizing ability of businesses. Externalizing = having someone else pay for part of your business, like when the US government pays for the military protection of oil installations in the Gulf or when the (again) the government pays for road construction and maintenance, so the movers don't have to. These are examples of, dare I say it, socialized services run by the government from the US, the so-called bastion of laissez-fair capitalism. Yet, the parent yaps about communism and killing a million people.
Matthew 1:16: And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. (Jesus -> Joseph -> Jacob)
vs.
Luke 3:23: And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, (Jesus -> Joseph -> Heli)
Too tired to refute your arguments myself, so I just quote. You'll find sources in the link, if you think anythink is wrong there, then take it up with them.
The constancy of radioactive decay is not an assumption, but is supported by evidence:
The radioactive decay rates of nuclides used in radiometric dating have not been observed to vary since their rates were directly measurable, at least within limits of accuracy. This is despite experiments that attempt to change decay rates (Emery 1972). Extreme pressure can cause electron-capture decay rates to increase slightly (less than 0.2 percent), but the change is small enough that it has no detectable effect on dates.
Supernovae are known to produce a large quantity of radioactive isotopes (Nomoto et al. 1997a, 1997b; Thielemann et al. 1998). These isotopes produce gamma rays with frequencies and fading rates that are predictable according to present decay rates. These predictions hold for supernova SN1987A, which is 169,000 light-years away (Knödlseder 2000). Therefore, radioactive decay rates were not significantly different 169,000 years ago. Present decay rates are likewise consistent with observations of the gamma rays and fading rates of supernova SN1991T, which is sixty million light-years away (Prantzos 1999), and with fading rate observations of supernovae billions of light-years away (Perlmutter et al. 1998).
The Oklo reactor was the site of a natural nuclear reaction 1,800 million years ago. The fine structure constant affects neutron capture rates, which can be measured from the reactor's products. These measurements show no detectable change in the fine structure constant and neutron capture for almost two billion years (Fujii et al. 2000; Shlyakhter 1976).
These are all human concepts that have definitions beyond their names.
That is nonsensical. They may have a layered meaning, but all of that is ascribed to by humans.
Feel free to believe that gravity and evolution are just human concepts and would disappear if we ceased to exist, but I won't be joining you.
The concepts of them would most certainly disappear, because they are human-made. It is us, who hold these concepts. No us, no concept. The underlying processes that we have mapped onto the concepts would not.
This discussion is getting to far away from the original, I'm signing off. Peace.
By now you have deluded the concepts of God so much that you've totally lost the essence of what atheists argue against. Which is Jesus, Mohammed, the FSM, the Intelligent Designer, the Pink Unicorn, Mother Gaia, the Universe, etc. You're talking about belief systems in general (of which atheism and agnosticism are two particular), but not about (organized) relgion anymore. By religion I mean something distinct from mere spirituality.
Also, remember that "nature" and "supernatural" or "determinism", "universe", "physical laws", "omnipotent", "afterlife", etc. are all human concepts. And it's humans that write the physical laws (through science).
* Religion, im my view, is almost always organized and requires some kind of dogma. Usually in a form of a holy book/text. It's always a group of people. Whereas spirituality is a individual trait. People can be spiritual, without being religious.
* Everything that is currently not or only insuffiently known to us, using our present tools, is still part of the natural world. There's a good chance that we'll eventually will have a reasonable explanation. Even dark matter or string theory or what have you.
* Scientific dogma is an oxymoron. Dogma means unchanging and indisputable, science is anything but. The only dogmatic thing about science is the application of the scientific method. But only, because it has been so tremendously useful at explaining the world around us. (No scientific method == no technological advance in the last 250 years.)
As to "Pure religion... is... to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction"... So religion basically means thinking about disadvantaged people? I beg to differ.
Would you say that multiple sources of Lincoln's Gettysburg address, or copies thereof, trash the reliability of that record? That's ludicrous.
You're the one that is ludicrous. If the New York Times, the Washington Post and the LA Times would print the Gettysberg address, but each slightly different and, most importantly, each contradicting the other in a few places, then the veracity of ALL publication is called into question. Think about it!
And if the article is the same every publication then they are most likely just copying the Associated Press blurb. That makes AP the primary source and WaPo, NYT, LAT a secondary source.
BTW, I've read the Bible and I don't own or watch TV.
"a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"
That's equating religion with belief system, which is what some (and only a few) scolars do. I think that this is a questionable interpretation, doing so muddies the water. I also find it curious, that you inist that atheists are "religious", when self-ascribed atheists say they are not. Finally that interpretation doesn't say anything about WHY the belief (that the supernatural does not exist) is held by atheists (namely good reason), which is really what atheism is about.
Indeed they do, but all those other differences are only in degree, not kind.
Only a religious person or seriously uneducated person would say something like this.
Either INTERPRETATION can explain the hard data. [...] There is no law of physics that requires "constants" controlling radioactive decay rates to be invariant.
You know nothning about about either biology or physics. First of all, ID does not explain the data at all. Before you concede that point, there's really no reason arguing with you. Evolution is at the heart of biology, without it, it's just a collection of interesting data and fields. Evolution ties it all together into a big picture.
Secondly, physics. Every law of physics needs to be universal (appear to be the same everywhere) and stable (has been the same since discovery). Without these underlying assumptions, physics stops making sense, because it loses its predictable power. And the weak nuclear force that covers nuclear decay does indeed require that 50% of atoms will be decayed in the span of a half-time.
You keep arguing against a lot of straw man, and constantly show an insufficient understanding of what you're arguing against. I suggest that you reflect a little, before you keep sprouting nonsense.
* Earliest dating of all written gospels are an entire generation apart from Jesus crucification. Mark: 70 AD, Matthew: 70-100 AD, Luke: 80-100, John: 90-110. That fact alone calls the reliability of the gospels into doubt, because 50 years is a lot of time for eye-witnesses to misremember things.
* What we know today as the four gospels was actually compiled in 325 AD by Constantine. They were at least 2 different versions of Luke floating around by the time it was written (google Marcion of Sinope).
* Paul who is responsible for most of the stuff that's in the New Testament never met Jesus in life. He bases his claims of authority on a vision of Jesus. So everything he claims specifically is secondary.
* Although John is the only gospel that talks about Jesus in an eye-witness fassion, both the text itself and historical attribution is unclear on that issue. Whether John is truly primary is questionable, at best.
* Then there are "secret gospels" (Mark, James, Thomas) that, although not part of the New Testament canon, need to be considered as sources if one seriously wants to study the "gospels". Some of them were to be included in early attempts to create a New Testament (Marcion again).
* Finally, Mark, Luke and Matthew are so similar to each other that it's clear that some (if not all) are copying. From each other and/or other sources. This trashes their reliability totally. Especially about anything miraculous, because these things miraculisly don't happen anymore, now do they?
* Also, Luke was from Antioch (modern southern Turkey). Jesus never came further north then Galilae. It is questionable whether Luke ever met Jesus.
But thank you for your discussion on primary and secondary sources. Being a history buff, it's always nice to meet people who can appreciate that distinction. You should really apply that kind of critical thinking to what your church is telling you.
The supernatural isn't "real", whether you call it superstition or things beyond my understanding? What exactly is the latter supposed to mean anyway?
It's really simple, you know. There is nothing outside this nature, nothing that we can't feel, see, hear, touch, count or reason about. And whether that happens through science, technology, philosophy, spirituality or some yet unknown culturual invention doesn't really matter. But religion and particularly any God figure is really poor at explaining reality, don't you agree. So why are rational people giving religion the benefit of doubt?
Have you even read my comment? Humans do a lot of things that apes don't do other than religion. I have yet to see an ape play basketball for example.
Religion builds community and since humans are a social, how is time and energy spent on religion wasted? In fact, the continuing adaptation of religious beliefs is an evolutionary process in itself. Also evolutionary dogma is an oxymoron, because dogma means unchanging and undisputable and science, by definition, is constantly changing and open to debate.
Finally, as an atheist I most certainly have a belief system, because every human does. You should not confuse the words religion with belief system, though, because religion requires the belief in the supernatural, which atheists explicitly reject. In fact, the rejection of the existance of the supernatural is what makes atheists atheists.
Your posts reeks of ignorance. "Possibly" tool making? Why don't you go educate yourself.
So you're saying, it can't be proven/disproven because it can't be proven/disproven. You see the circular argument that's going on in agnosticism? Why believe in such a tautology?
Also, if you deny the existance of the supernatural, as atheists do, then God, by definition does not exist.
As to fairies, we can study how stories about them came into existance, and why children believe in them. Why not apply the same rigor to God?
Slashdot Mirror
Last night I downloaded Google's android SDK and emulator, and today I have a working Hello World and sample Lunar Lander.
1. Download Android SDK.
2. Build and run the examples.
3. ???
4. Profit!
No, a file system is a crude database.
Take a file system, add some precalculated hash lookups for speeding up search, glue on an SQL interface, you have a database.
Translation: Take a filesystem, add a SQL database and you have a database. D'uh!
Yes, it does. The exchange went from "people should hold good stock" (1) to "airline stock is good" (2) implying "(1) is not true, because the good airline stock crashed today" (3) without ever bringing evidence for (2).
If (2) were true -- and I'd argue that it's not -- then (1) would be begging the question to resolve the apparent contradiction.
Begs the question: Is airline stock really a sound investment?
That's still a clutch, because your browser (better yet: the text control of your widget set) could convert your input to the actual characters on the fly. In any case, the original poster apparently has a German keyboard. To suggest that a non-English speaker has to input code to write a character that's right there on his keyboard is preposterous.
The 1970s called, they want their SGML entities back.
Seriously, why recommend these clutches that only fix a symptom and that nobody but geeks understand? A website that doesn't understand Unicode is simply broken.
Disclaimer: I just debugged a problem with Unicode passing over HTTP and then Java RMI and I still haven't found a solution that works on Linux and OS X. Argh!
She was for the bridge before she was against.
Anchoridge Daily News: Palin touts stance on 'Bridge to Nowhere,' doesn't note flip-flop
Choice quote:
Does the conservative spirit include the right of rapists to choose the mothers of their children?
Because that's is the logical conclusion of Palin's view that abortions should be illegal even in cases of rape or incest.
http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/101906/sta_20061019031.shtml
That won't insert characters into password fields in Safari. Works in Firefox, though.
either that fine is new or they enforce it selectivly, because a few years ago I waited almost a year before registering my new address with the meldestelle as it is called in germany, and they didn't say anything. iirc, the law states that you have to register within 14 days.
btw, since a year or so you can register your residence online.
I've already answered your question, but if you like, I'll do it again: The person sneaking into a theater is "merely" tresspassing and not stealing anything. Is that really so difficult to grasp?
I would consider it "cheating", but fortunately cheating is not yet illegal. (Otherwise every student would be a criminal.) And cheating is not necessarily objectionable or immoral, it depends on the circumstances. Cheating in school certainly is not immoral.
The person that's sneaking in is not stealing anything. He is, at most, trespassing.
Different analogy: A band has fenced in a section of a city park and sells tickets for the event. I can't sneak in (trespassing), but I can certainly listen to the music from my apartment window, if the location provides it.
Why did this giant straw man get an Interesting mod? All the grandparent is talking about is reducing the externalizing ability of businesses. Externalizing = having someone else pay for part of your business, like when the US government pays for the military protection of oil installations in the Gulf or when the (again) the government pays for road construction and maintenance, so the movers don't have to. These are examples of, dare I say it, socialized services run by the government from the US, the so-called bastion of laissez-fair capitalism. Yet, the parent yaps about communism and killing a million people.
Get a grip.
Interesting. How about
,43; 2:1: Jesus at Galilae 3 days after his babtism.
Mark 1:12-13: Jesus in the wilderness for 40 days after his baptism.
vs.
John 1:35
Peace!
Matthew 1:16: And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. (Jesus -> Joseph -> Jacob)
vs.
Luke 3:23: And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, (Jesus -> Joseph -> Heli)
Peace!
Wiki page about the Oklo reactor.
BTW, you don't know me, yet you can assign a "probability" on who of us knows more about physics. Whatever.
Peace!
That is nonsensical. They may have a layered meaning, but all of that is ascribed to by humans.
The concepts of them would most certainly disappear, because they are human-made. It is us, who hold these concepts. No us, no concept. The underlying processes that we have mapped onto the concepts would not.
This discussion is getting to far away from the original, I'm signing off. Peace.
By now you have deluded the concepts of God so much that you've totally lost the essence of what atheists argue against. Which is Jesus, Mohammed, the FSM, the Intelligent Designer, the Pink Unicorn, Mother Gaia, the Universe, etc. You're talking about belief systems in general (of which atheism and agnosticism are two particular), but not about (organized) relgion anymore. By religion I mean something distinct from mere spirituality.
Also, remember that "nature" and "supernatural" or "determinism", "universe", "physical laws", "omnipotent", "afterlife", etc. are all human concepts. And it's humans that write the physical laws (through science).
It appears we're talking past each other.
... is ... to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction"... So religion basically means thinking about disadvantaged people? I beg to differ.
Couple points:
* Religion, im my view, is almost always organized and requires some kind of dogma. Usually in a form of a holy book/text. It's always a group of people. Whereas spirituality is a individual trait. People can be spiritual, without being religious.
* Everything that is currently not or only insuffiently known to us, using our present tools, is still part of the natural world. There's a good chance that we'll eventually will have a reasonable explanation. Even dark matter or string theory or what have you.
* Scientific dogma is an oxymoron. Dogma means unchanging and indisputable, science is anything but. The only dogmatic thing about science is the application of the scientific method. But only, because it has been so tremendously useful at explaining the world around us. (No scientific method == no technological advance in the last 250 years.)
As to "Pure religion
You're the one that is ludicrous. If the New York Times, the Washington Post and the LA Times would print the Gettysberg address, but each slightly different and, most importantly, each contradicting the other in a few places, then the veracity of ALL publication is called into question. Think about it!
And if the article is the same every publication then they are most likely just copying the Associated Press blurb. That makes AP the primary source and WaPo, NYT, LAT a secondary source.
BTW, I've read the Bible and I don't own or watch TV.
That's equating religion with belief system, which is what some (and only a few) scolars do. I think that this is a questionable interpretation, doing so muddies the water. I also find it curious, that you inist that atheists are "religious", when self-ascribed atheists say they are not. Finally that interpretation doesn't say anything about WHY the belief (that the supernatural does not exist) is held by atheists (namely good reason), which is really what atheism is about.
Only a religious person or seriously uneducated person would say something like this.
You know nothning about about either biology or physics. First of all, ID does not explain the data at all. Before you concede that point, there's really no reason arguing with you. Evolution is at the heart of biology, without it, it's just a collection of interesting data and fields. Evolution ties it all together into a big picture.
Secondly, physics. Every law of physics needs to be universal (appear to be the same everywhere) and stable (has been the same since discovery). Without these underlying assumptions, physics stops making sense, because it loses its predictable power. And the weak nuclear force that covers nuclear decay does indeed require that 50% of atoms will be decayed in the span of a half-time.
You keep arguing against a lot of straw man, and constantly show an insufficient understanding of what you're arguing against. I suggest that you reflect a little, before you keep sprouting nonsense.
You must be joking!
* Earliest dating of all written gospels are an entire generation apart from Jesus crucification. Mark: 70 AD, Matthew: 70-100 AD, Luke: 80-100, John: 90-110. That fact alone calls the reliability of the gospels into doubt, because 50 years is a lot of time for eye-witnesses to misremember things.
* What we know today as the four gospels was actually compiled in 325 AD by Constantine. They were at least 2 different versions of Luke floating around by the time it was written (google Marcion of Sinope).
* Paul who is responsible for most of the stuff that's in the New Testament never met Jesus in life. He bases his claims of authority on a vision of Jesus. So everything he claims specifically is secondary.
* Although John is the only gospel that talks about Jesus in an eye-witness fassion, both the text itself and historical attribution is unclear on that issue. Whether John is truly primary is questionable, at best.
* Then there are "secret gospels" (Mark, James, Thomas) that, although not part of the New Testament canon, need to be considered as sources if one seriously wants to study the "gospels". Some of them were to be included in early attempts to create a New Testament (Marcion again).
* Finally, Mark, Luke and Matthew are so similar to each other that it's clear that some (if not all) are copying. From each other and/or other sources. This trashes their reliability totally. Especially about anything miraculous, because these things miraculisly don't happen anymore, now do they?
* Also, Luke was from Antioch (modern southern Turkey). Jesus never came further north then Galilae. It is questionable whether Luke ever met Jesus.
But thank you for your discussion on primary and secondary sources. Being a history buff, it's always nice to meet people who can appreciate that distinction. You should really apply that kind of critical thinking to what your church is telling you.
The supernatural isn't "real", whether you call it superstition or things beyond my understanding? What exactly is the latter supposed to mean anyway?
It's really simple, you know. There is nothing outside this nature, nothing that we can't feel, see, hear, touch, count or reason about. And whether that happens through science, technology, philosophy, spirituality or some yet unknown culturual invention doesn't really matter. But religion and particularly any God figure is really poor at explaining reality, don't you agree. So why are rational people giving religion the benefit of doubt?
Have you even read my comment? Humans do a lot of things that apes don't do other than religion. I have yet to see an ape play basketball for example.
Religion builds community and since humans are a social, how is time and energy spent on religion wasted? In fact, the continuing adaptation of religious beliefs is an evolutionary process in itself. Also evolutionary dogma is an oxymoron, because dogma means unchanging and undisputable and science, by definition, is constantly changing and open to debate.
Finally, as an atheist I most certainly have a belief system, because every human does. You should not confuse the words religion with belief system, though, because religion requires the belief in the supernatural, which atheists explicitly reject. In fact, the rejection of the existance of the supernatural is what makes atheists atheists.
Your posts reeks of ignorance. "Possibly" tool making? Why don't you go educate yourself.
So you're saying, it can't be proven/disproven because it can't be proven/disproven. You see the circular argument that's going on in agnosticism? Why believe in such a tautology?
Also, if you deny the existance of the supernatural, as atheists do, then God, by definition does not exist.
As to fairies, we can study how stories about them came into existance, and why children believe in them. Why not apply the same rigor to God?