Evolution is a theory as much as gravitation is a theory. There are unavoidable facts, you throw something up and it falls. It simply happens, that's a fact. The theories on the other hand are there trying to explain the why and how it happens. The same thing happens with evolution. There is overwhelming evidence that shows that evolution are in fact, facts. Now the how and why it happens is the quid.
"Creationism" is the product of relatively recent offshoots of Christianity that attempt to deny, among other things, the role of reason.
I thought that all religions deny, among other things, the role of reason.
Most religious people I've met would agree that the "devil" plays with our intelligence. Whatever thought that makes us diverge or even criticize about the scriptures are devilish. The very reason of existence of creationism is because of the literal interpretations that most protestant have.
The Catholic doctrine on the other hand, is officially against creationism and has a more scientific-evolution-friendly interpretation of the bible. But of course, one thing is the official doctrine and another thing are the fanatic nutjobs you find everyday in church.
Value is based on scarcity that is Econ 101, whoever is against it, should retake Econ 101.
Because resources are scarce, the second principle is that people face trade-offs in their economic decisions.
But what the other guy said is the typical "win-win" situation, where it helps developing growth but it is the interchange of values, not creation of value. The added value is already in the traded product.
The exact processes that cause it are somewhat (but not very) debatable
Exactly as it happens with gravity. Both gravity and evolution, everything observable and experienceable are unavoidable FACTS.
That reality check is the only thing is that made philosophy have a very specific branch known today as SCIENCE.
Gravity is observable and known to happen, the WHY and HOW it happens is still being debated although the theory that is mostly accepted is that it is caused by the curvature of time and space. This theory is being tested by checking out the predictions and implications of this proposed explanation with experimentations. So far, all the experiments done tend to agree with Einstein's ideas.
In the case of Evolution the same thing happens, it is a fact although the WHY and HOW is still being debated, but so far all the experimentations strengthen the theory supporting that it undoubtedly happens.
Someone wise in Slashdot had this in his signature: In the face of contravening evidence, science will revise its theories. Religion (ergo, Creationism) however revises the evidence.
All the advices can be summarized to this: Report everything that would make the executives happy and report everything that would make the executives feel concerned. The rest is superfluous.
4th hypothesis, in the history of universe the activation of the LHC is a asymptote. No matter how many times you try to get closer to the activation, we might be infinitely trying to activate it.
Theism is a set of active belief systems with rules, directions, leaders, and so forth. Atheism is not.
You are believing that you don't believe (or you may prefer: that there is nothing to believe)
But until there is an empirical proof that validates such reasoning it will always be a belief, which is what an hypothesis or a theory is until it is proven. You believe until you know.
And unfortunately even atheism is unfortunately becoming a dogma.
From my experience the 50% of the people I encounter claiming to be atheist are actually exploding with antireligious sentiments (most of them being misinformed, others just repeating myths and others in the same level of paranoid conspirationists). The other half are actually agnostics claiming to be atheists.
The real atheists are really hard to find. I think that a real atheist should conclude that antitheism is simply wrong, from a psychological perspective, I think that religion and the belief in a supernatural entity is simply a psychological need, a essential existential necessity for your psychological stability. Think about your parents, about a son or a close friend who dies, the acceptance that he or she just went to nothingness is really unbearable for most people. But if you are able to be "cold hearted" enough to not shed tears and still claim you are an atheist WITHOUT WISHING there was an afterlife, then let me welcome you to the real atheist club.
well, actually you are making a rebuttal when there is no disagreement in first place. Reread the quote and you will realize that the first statement is about agnostics and the second about atheists. The rest are just semantics. You lack of belief in the existence of a supernatural entity (to put it even more clear), therefore you don't believe in gods, ergo you believe there are no gods. Tomto/Tomäto.
Also you omitted the very antireligious nature of communism, you should read the communist manifesto. By the way, probably if Stalin was a religious man, he would have killed in the name of God. But he wasn't and he killed in for the sake of his state control and the implicit antireligious communism.
Antireligion, antitheism and atheism should be differentiated from each other, in the case of Stalin there is a mix of each of them. I am personally a strong atheist who is against of antireligion and antitheism.
Well, emails are more postcards than mails. You can't claim privacy to something that is exposed, even if it is not courteous to read something that is clearly private.
A whole different thing would be encrypted communication, a weak encryption would be the mail in an envelope.
The same criteria I think could be used for open wireless networks, if there is no password, it is by default public. Using an open network shouldn't be illegal. Using an encrypted network without permission should be punishable, no matter how weak WEP is.
Now online backuping should be clearly protected by law. It is like saying that because I rent a U-Haul storage the products I have stored there aren't "mine" because I don't own the place. That is simply idiotic and incongruent with the analogous laws applied in real world.
I can imagine that judge replying to me after reading my comment: "yeah... uh... but I thought we weren't analogous anymore, we are digital!" (ugh)
Actually the only thing that keeps us safe from the sun is the atmosphere and the magnetic poles of the Earth. Anything outside our cocoon in space would kill us immediately.
I was reading your reply, and I was saying to my self "yeah, yeah, so?, yeah, uh-huh, yeah!, so why he is writing like we are in a disagreement?", then I reread my post and I said to my self "what the fuck?".
They key of my error: "But you can be a theist but not believing in any religion at all, some call this being a weak agnostic." Modify this variable and everything fall to their respective pieces.
Actually the case of Galileo is very funny and very personal, you should really check your facts before posting bullshit. The cause of the excommunication wasn't originally because of the dilemma between Heliocentrism vs. Geocentrism, it originated in a personal offense of Galileo towards the Pope. Proposing Heliocentrism was delicate enough for the church, but still he had the blessing from the Pope since he was also himself a enthusiastic amateur astronomer himself and an admirer of Galileo too.
If you check the first publication of his theory called "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems", he actually got permission from the Inquisition and he got papal permission.
The problem was that in that paper he created a character where he unintentionally ridicules the pope, and of course the pope didn't take that lightly. Pissing off a powerful man who used to be your supporter is not really a smart idea, and that was the actual reason behind the curtains for Galileo's excommunication.
(I think Galileo's case this is a great life lesson for all the geeks out there.)
Wait, being religious you imply believing in a God. But you can be a theist but not believing in any religion at all, some call this being a weak agnostic. I think that instead of stamps I feel it is closer to martial arts. You can believe that martial arts help developing self-defense skills, or you can believe that martial art skills are useless. That would be the theist/atheist arguments. Now believing that a particular dojo teaches the "real" martial art, is believing in a religion. Believing that martial arts help in self-defense but not believing that any dojo can actually teach you to defend yourself properly, would be agnosticism.
One key difference to believe that there is something out there, and the other to believe that nothing is out there. Communism was a special case where political ideology and a non-religious belief existed, and it wasn't just atheist it was blatantly antireligious. So you could argue that atheism didn't cause the religious massacres, but you can't deny that the antireligious sentiment that is hardcoded in the communist manifesto didn't spark the disdain and hatred of religion in all communist countries. It wasn't just Stalin, it happened in every communist country in the world.
"To blame the mass killings of USSR on the imposed removal of religion and religous practice there is ridiculous. It was the work of madmen." You could reuse that argument for the theists and religious:
"To blame the mass killings of Religion on the terrorist acts and religious wars in the past is ridiculous. It was the work of madmen." This is equally fair for both theists and atheists. Violence itself is pathological to both.
Slashdot Mirror
The really funny thing is that only in Slashdot you would get "Insightful" instead of "Funny" xD
Evolution is a theory as much as gravitation is a theory. There are unavoidable facts, you throw something up and it falls. It simply happens, that's a fact. The theories on the other hand are there trying to explain the why and how it happens.
The same thing happens with evolution. There is overwhelming evidence that shows that evolution are in fact, facts. Now the how and why it happens is the quid.
"Creationism" is the product of relatively recent offshoots of Christianity that attempt to deny, among other things, the role of reason.
I thought that all religions deny, among other things, the role of reason.
Most religious people I've met would agree that the "devil" plays with our intelligence. Whatever thought that makes us diverge or even criticize about the scriptures are devilish.
The very reason of existence of creationism is because of the literal interpretations that most protestant have.
The Catholic doctrine on the other hand, is officially against creationism and has a more scientific-evolution-friendly interpretation of the bible. But of course, one thing is the official doctrine and another thing are the fanatic nutjobs you find everyday in church.
I can assure you that human psychology is quite predictable.
Like right now, I predict you will disagree with me.
Value can only be created by consuming resources
Value is based on scarcity that is Econ 101, whoever is against it, should retake Econ 101.
Because resources are scarce, the second principle is that people face trade-offs in their economic decisions.
But what the other guy said is the typical "win-win" situation, where it helps developing growth but it is the interchange of values, not creation of value. The added value is already in the traded product.
The exact processes that cause it are somewhat (but not very) debatable
Exactly as it happens with gravity. Both gravity and evolution, everything observable and experienceable are unavoidable FACTS.
That reality check is the only thing is that made philosophy have a very specific branch known today as SCIENCE.
Gravity is observable and known to happen, the WHY and HOW it happens is still being debated although the theory that is mostly accepted is that it is caused by the curvature of time and space. This theory is being tested by checking out the predictions and implications of this proposed explanation with experimentations. So far, all the experiments done tend to agree with Einstein's ideas.
In the case of Evolution the same thing happens, it is a fact although the WHY and HOW is still being debated, but so far all the experimentations strengthen the theory supporting that it undoubtedly happens.
Someone wise in Slashdot had this in his signature: In the face of contravening evidence, science will revise its theories. Religion (ergo, Creationism) however revises the evidence.
Isn't it a paradox to find a creationist in Slashdot?
Somehow the fabric of time and space got twisted here.
All the advices can be summarized to this: Report everything that would make the executives happy and report everything that would make the executives feel concerned. The rest is superfluous.
4th hypothesis, in the history of universe the activation of the LHC is a asymptote. No matter how many times you try to get closer to the activation, we might be infinitely trying to activate it.
Listen to grandchild
Theism is a set of active belief systems with rules, directions, leaders, and so forth. Atheism is not.
You are believing that you don't believe (or you may prefer: that there is nothing to believe) But until there is an empirical proof that validates such reasoning it will always be a belief, which is what an hypothesis or a theory is until it is proven. You believe until you know.
And unfortunately even atheism is unfortunately becoming a dogma.
From my experience the 50% of the people I encounter claiming to be atheist are actually exploding with antireligious sentiments (most of them being misinformed, others just repeating myths and others in the same level of paranoid conspirationists). The other half are actually agnostics claiming to be atheists. The real atheists are really hard to find. I think that a real atheist should conclude that antitheism is simply wrong, from a psychological perspective, I think that religion and the belief in a supernatural entity is simply a psychological need, a essential existential necessity for your psychological stability. Think about your parents, about a son or a close friend who dies, the acceptance that he or she just went to nothingness is really unbearable for most people. But if you are able to be "cold hearted" enough to not shed tears and still claim you are an atheist WITHOUT WISHING there was an afterlife, then let me welcome you to the real atheist club.
Also you omitted the very antireligious nature of communism, you should read the communist manifesto. By the way, probably if Stalin was a religious man, he would have killed in the name of God. But he wasn't and he killed in for the sake of his state control and the implicit antireligious communism.
Antireligion, antitheism and atheism should be differentiated from each other, in the case of Stalin there is a mix of each of them. I am personally a strong atheist who is against of antireligion and antitheism.
A whole different thing would be encrypted communication, a weak encryption would be the mail in an envelope.
The same criteria I think could be used for open wireless networks, if there is no password, it is by default public. Using an open network shouldn't be illegal. Using an encrypted network without permission should be punishable, no matter how weak WEP is.
Now online backuping should be clearly protected by law.
It is like saying that because I rent a U-Haul storage the products I have stored there aren't "mine" because I don't own the place. That is simply idiotic and incongruent with the analogous laws applied in real world.
I can imagine that judge replying to me after reading my comment: "yeah... uh... but I thought we weren't analogous anymore, we are digital!" (ugh)
human miseries are not bugs, but features.
Well I think that using coconut carbon to ignite the reactor is absolutely unethical!
Wait, was this article about?
Actually the only thing that keeps us safe from the sun is the atmosphere and the magnetic poles of the Earth.
Anything outside our cocoon in space would kill us immediately.
When you eat a cupcake without the cup you still call it a cupcake, don't you?
This level of discussion is of a primary school student.
I was reading your reply, and I was saying to my self "yeah, yeah, so?, yeah, uh-huh, yeah!, so why he is writing like we are in a disagreement?", then I reread my post and I said to my self "what the fuck?".
They key of my error: "But you can be a theist but not believing in any religion at all, some call this being a weak agnostic." Modify this variable and everything fall to their respective pieces.
excellent idea, and what about adding rails and interconnecting cars for even bigger capacity?
If you check the first publication of his theory called "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems", he actually got permission from the Inquisition and he got papal permission.
The problem was that in that paper he created a character where he unintentionally ridicules the pope, and of course the pope didn't take that lightly. Pissing off a powerful man who used to be your supporter is not really a smart idea, and that was the actual reason behind the curtains for Galileo's excommunication.
(I think Galileo's case this is a great life lesson for all the geeks out there.)
Wait, being religious you imply believing in a God. But you can be a theist but not believing in any religion at all, some call this being a weak agnostic. I think that instead of stamps I feel it is closer to martial arts. You can believe that martial arts help developing self-defense skills, or you can believe that martial art skills are useless. That would be the theist/atheist arguments. Now believing that a particular dojo teaches the "real" martial art, is believing in a religion. Believing that martial arts help in self-defense but not believing that any dojo can actually teach you to defend yourself properly, would be agnosticism.
One key difference to believe that there is something out there, and the other to believe that nothing is out there. Communism was a special case where political ideology and a non-religious belief existed, and it wasn't just atheist it was blatantly antireligious. So you could argue that atheism didn't cause the religious massacres, but you can't deny that the antireligious sentiment that is hardcoded in the communist manifesto didn't spark the disdain and hatred of religion in all communist countries. It wasn't just Stalin, it happened in every communist country in the world.
"To blame the mass killings of USSR on the imposed removal of religion and religous practice there is ridiculous. It was the work of madmen."
You could reuse that argument for the theists and religious:
"To blame the mass killings of Religion on the terrorist acts and religious wars in the past is ridiculous. It was the work of madmen."
This is equally fair for both theists and atheists. Violence itself is pathological to both.
Theory x Experimentation = Law
"Beauty is something we all have, but something that not everybody can see" (pat on shoulders)