While this may be true in a glib sense, it can attest that I myself was definitely rationally argued out of my evangelical faith. We should absolutely engage the faithful in rational debate whenever possible.
This makes the problem worse, not better. The facts around Jesus' death and resurrection MUST be true if Christianity is to have any value. If the stories in the Bible are a rough guide, you must throw out the Jesus miracles.
If you do throw them out, you're left with a book that has no more value than the next "self-help" book on Amazon, and probably quite a bit less (few current self-help books advocate the horrors that the Bible does).
I've always found this particular combination confusing. If evolutionary theory is true, there were no physical Adam and Eve. If there were no Adam and Eve, there was no original sin. If there was no original sin, we do not need Christ's atonement.
If we don't need Christ's atonement, what possible use could there be for being a Christian?
Not trying to be confrontational, just wondering how you reconciled these things.
I've been using it without issue for a few months to sync 2TB of media across a couple of computers. Transfers don't start immediately, but they go quickly once they do.
They're apparently developing a feature where the folder on the other computer will be encrypted, allowing you to swap space with your neighbor and have off-site storage without him poking into your business. I'm eagerly awaiting this...
Let me translate what you said to a car analogy, then you can see if your statement still makes sense.
"Your car is unsafe because it was recalled due to a seat-belt issue. You should ride a motorbike like me. It's never been recalled for seat belt issues."
A bunch of small minded people are going to tell you this is impossible, but that's because many people react to new ideas with "I can think of a problem with your idea, therefore it won't work" rather than "let's see how we can make this work".
I think you may well be on to something. It could be the most important thing you do in your life. Explore this further. If you need someone to write some software for it (a web app?), let me know, and I'll contribute.
Are you claiming that, with what we know now, that all of the dietary/hygienic instructions in Leviticus are:
Simpler to understand
More effective at achieving their aims
...than the four simple rules I stated above? If they are not, is the reason more likely that an omnipotent God deliberately set down rules that were not as effective as they could be, or that it was written by bronze-age shepherds who didn't know any better?
I disagree. An omnipotent god would have thrown out all the dietary/hygiene rules in the OT and replaced it with "Boil your water, cook your food, wash your hands, shit downstream from where you live". These 4 simple instructions are VASTLY superior to all the rubbish that masquerades as "divinely inspired" nonsense in the OT. They are easier to remember, easier to do, and about 1000 times more effective. Why isn't that information in the Bible? Because the ignorant shepherds who wrote it didn't know about germ theory.
To paraphrase Sam Harris, imagine how incredible the Bible would be if it was actually written by an omnipotent being.
This is the same argument that people make for abstinence-only sex education. When it's done perfectly, it's perfect. When it's not done perfectly, it's a fucking disaster.
I have a 2 and a 4-year-old. I bust my ass to keep tabs on them and I'll rip the face off of anyone who claims otherwise. But I'm not perfect, and neither are they. Why the hell would I gamble everything on my ability to be perfect?
Whenever someone mentions tracking technology, everyone gets their panties in a giant knot, and there are real issues there, so that's fine. But let me put it to you this way: If you had the ability to put a small device on your child that communicated in an encrypted fashion with a mobile that you carried, and it was impossible for anyone else (your mobile provider, Google, Apple) to learn ANYTHING about where you child was except you, wouldn't you do it? I sure as hell would. It would be negligent not to.
So the problem isn't knowing where your toddler is through electronic means, the problem is third parties knowing where your toddler is through electronic means. This is a software problem, and one we know how to solve. Let's move on to finding a better way for parents to look after their kids.
You've received some flack for this in your comments, but you're right. There are NO technologies that have been created based on the theory of God. That tells you something about the usefulness and explanatory power of religion: nil.
That's certainly what a lot of people think. What I'm trying to say is that is not what the evidence says. The innovation happens anyway. Only after the innovation has happened to patents get applied to the new field.
Anyway, check out the book I mentioned (Against Intellectual Monopoly). It spells it out in much greater detail.
There's a lot of good stuff in your post. We often forget the historical perspective.
My objection is your conclusion that innovation happens in spite of and because of these patent battles. This is incorrect. Research shows that in almost every field, there was rapid innovation, then patents were brought in to consolidate. The evidence is outlined in the freely available "Against Intellectual Monopoly".
TL;DR - Innovation does not happen because of patents, innovation happens, then patents happen.
I'm not sure that's possible. However, you can show it "likely" to be true by analyzing industries that do not have intellectual property now, and industries that did not have intellectual property, but now do.
Fortunately, someone has already done this work for you. Search for "Against Intellectual Monopoly", a freely available book, which explores this very issue.
Slashdot Mirror
While this may be true in a glib sense, it can attest that I myself was definitely rationally argued out of my evangelical faith. We should absolutely engage the faithful in rational debate whenever possible.
Religion is based on pretending to know what you can't possibly know.
FTFY
Of course, I'm not sure how that provides a better explanation than "myth, legend, and anecdotal evidence".
Our banks will release all personal information to US law enforcement, even though this directly contravenes our Constitution.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadian-banks-to-be-compelled-to-share-clients-info-with-u-s-1.2437975
This makes the problem worse, not better. The facts around Jesus' death and resurrection MUST be true if Christianity is to have any value. If the stories in the Bible are a rough guide, you must throw out the Jesus miracles.
If you do throw them out, you're left with a book that has no more value than the next "self-help" book on Amazon, and probably quite a bit less (few current self-help books advocate the horrors that the Bible does).
I've always found this particular combination confusing. If evolutionary theory is true, there were no physical Adam and Eve. If there were no Adam and Eve, there was no original sin. If there was no original sin, we do not need Christ's atonement.
If we don't need Christ's atonement, what possible use could there be for being a Christian?
Not trying to be confrontational, just wondering how you reconciled these things.
Try this instead: "Religion does not rigorously use logic or empiricism." Unfortunately for your arguments, it's just as devastating.
I always thought this was the acknowledged importance of sexual reproduction as well: It increases the variability.
I'm sure a computer could do it better as long as the gubmint doesn't regulate the crap out of it.
Just like the boondoggle that is the FAA has made air travel little more than a death wish?
I've been using it without issue for a few months to sync 2TB of media across a couple of computers. Transfers don't start immediately, but they go quickly once they do.
They're apparently developing a feature where the folder on the other computer will be encrypted, allowing you to swap space with your neighbor and have off-site storage without him poking into your business. I'm eagerly awaiting this...
I got this one, boys.
Let me translate what you said to a car analogy, then you can see if your statement still makes sense.
"Your car is unsafe because it was recalled due to a seat-belt issue. You should ride a motorbike like me. It's never been recalled for seat belt issues."
A bunch of small minded people are going to tell you this is impossible, but that's because many people react to new ideas with "I can think of a problem with your idea, therefore it won't work" rather than "let's see how we can make this work".
I think you may well be on to something. It could be the most important thing you do in your life. Explore this further. If you need someone to write some software for it (a web app?), let me know, and I'll contribute.
And you blame the victim. The other sources of blame may be misguided. Yours is reprehensible.
Your post is (deliberately?) obtuse.
Are you claiming that, with what we know now, that all of the dietary/hygienic instructions in Leviticus are:
I disagree. An omnipotent god would have thrown out all the dietary/hygiene rules in the OT and replaced it with "Boil your water, cook your food, wash your hands, shit downstream from where you live". These 4 simple instructions are VASTLY superior to all the rubbish that masquerades as "divinely inspired" nonsense in the OT. They are easier to remember, easier to do, and about 1000 times more effective. Why isn't that information in the Bible? Because the ignorant shepherds who wrote it didn't know about germ theory.
To paraphrase Sam Harris, imagine how incredible the Bible would be if it was actually written by an omnipotent being.
Thanks, Chris. That was useful, and I'll do some more Googling based on your reply.
I see these articles occasionally, but I don't know the significance. Can you outline *why* I should be excited about this?
All my sites hosted at Webfaction use PostgreSQL at no extra charge. On top of this, their service is fantastic.
This is the same argument that people make for abstinence-only sex education. When it's done perfectly, it's perfect. When it's not done perfectly, it's a fucking disaster.
I have a 2 and a 4-year-old. I bust my ass to keep tabs on them and I'll rip the face off of anyone who claims otherwise. But I'm not perfect, and neither are they. Why the hell would I gamble everything on my ability to be perfect?
Whenever someone mentions tracking technology, everyone gets their panties in a giant knot, and there are real issues there, so that's fine. But let me put it to you this way: If you had the ability to put a small device on your child that communicated in an encrypted fashion with a mobile that you carried, and it was impossible for anyone else (your mobile provider, Google, Apple) to learn ANYTHING about where you child was except you, wouldn't you do it? I sure as hell would. It would be negligent not to.
So the problem isn't knowing where your toddler is through electronic means, the problem is third parties knowing where your toddler is through electronic means. This is a software problem, and one we know how to solve. Let's move on to finding a better way for parents to look after their kids.
Lemon out.
Well said, Jareth. I'd have modded you up but have no points.
You've received some flack for this in your comments, but you're right. There are NO technologies that have been created based on the theory of God. That tells you something about the usefulness and explanatory power of religion: nil.
That's certainly what a lot of people think. What I'm trying to say is that is not what the evidence says. The innovation happens anyway. Only after the innovation has happened to patents get applied to the new field.
Anyway, check out the book I mentioned (Against Intellectual Monopoly). It spells it out in much greater detail.
There's a lot of good stuff in your post. We often forget the historical perspective.
My objection is your conclusion that innovation happens in spite of and because of these patent battles. This is incorrect. Research shows that in almost every field, there was rapid innovation, then patents were brought in to consolidate. The evidence is outlined in the freely available "Against Intellectual Monopoly".
TL;DR - Innovation does not happen because of patents, innovation happens, then patents happen.
Keep moving those goal-posts, AC! You've got them backed off so far now you have to squint to see them.
I'm not sure that's possible. However, you can show it "likely" to be true by analyzing industries that do not have intellectual property now, and industries that did not have intellectual property, but now do.
Fortunately, someone has already done this work for you. Search for "Against Intellectual Monopoly", a freely available book, which explores this very issue.
If you were blind, how would you know?