The above post is not a Troll. The above post was pointing out a Flamebait that was using nasty language against me. Instead of Moderating the AC's post as Flamebait, you Moderate my post as Troll. Just because you AC Trolls and Flames are pro-religious and anti-secularist is no reason to treat them with reverence. Hating with moderation because of your religious beliefs is wrong. Stop the religious hatred, and stop making religious people look evil and hypocritical.
You obviously have a lot of religious friends who will moderate you up and moderate all my posts down. But that just means that YOU lose, because it exposes your community for what it is. You can moderate me down (again) because you know that I am Insightful. The Truth shall set me Free. I become stronger with every down mod.
The fact that you moderate my post as Flaimbait and do not moderate the post that I am alluding to as Flaimbait shows hypocrisy on your part. You are not "punishing" me in any way, but just reinforcing my beliefs that religious people are hypocrites and don't live up to the Christian (et al) doctrines of love and kindness that they preach. You and the other abusive moderators here are an embarrassment.
Here's a bunch. [google.com] I just SMOKED YOU BITCH!!! Don't ever question me again!! YOU GOT PWNED!!!
You should apologize to me for that Flame. And ask the Slashdot community to get rid of your +2 moderation if you have any sense of honesty and justice.
How many mod points do you moderation Trolls have? If you are an editor, I will expose you so you will lose your job. Otherwise you will just get bitch-slapped from Slashdot. This moderation abuse must stop.
My above post was NOT a Troll. Who keeps up-modding the Trolls that, for example state that "I just SMOKED YOU BITCH!!!" when these posts just give red-herring and bogus links along with their insults?... It does nothing for the cause of religion. What it does do is just make the religious agenda appear more fanatical to neutral parties.
I will keep on exposing you religious nuts for what you are. Are you going to mod this post a Troll as well?
because (1) You are making yourself look foolish and reactionary (2) You are wasting perfectly good moderation points
Also. If you are still here. Mark this post Troll as well. I will certainly do my best to help you get rid of your Mod points so that you won't abuse them with other people's posts.
No it's not just about software. When you buy an Apple computer, your not spending the extra $500.00 on hardware and software; you're spending the extra $500.00 on the Reality Distortion Field
That's OK. When people tend to continually question my answers then I get suspicious. BTW, I have been reading some of your other posts on the topic as well, just to get a better idea about you and whether you were just being a crank. I think probably not. People can certainly learn a lot by questioning; that's how Socrates learned -:)
... and decided that the correct way to resolve the issue was not to do analysis, not to consult the textbooks, but to vote on it. That taught me a lot about how science functions in a culture obsessed by democracy.
This example reminds me more of the inadequacies of the typical human brain. Political systems (unfortunately) and ideologies don't tend to have much influence on intelligence. Most people, unfortunately, are completely unaware of how stupid they are. Education, unfortunately, only tends to give people of false sense of intelligence.
Are you saying the "scientific community" does not have a common definition of the scientific method?? Because if so, we are screwed, and we are all wasting our time.
Would you agree?
No, not at all (on both points). And I'm starting to get the impression that you are Trolling.
Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove
I agree that this approach can be used as a tool, but I disagree that disproving anything should be a goal of science (or the scientific method) in itself. I could presume others may have sympathy with my opinion considering that "This article's factual accuracy is disputed."
I thought science was about disproving hypothesis, not proving fact. Or am I missing something?
That really depends on how you define science. I wouldn't grant anybody a monopoly on that. And there are certainly assumptions in the use of the word "fact". For me at least Science has more to do with systematic and logical experimentation and observation; the results of which are important, and not whether a hypothesis has been proven or disproven.
Lots of universities have Political Science departments and programs. But no one protests about this.
Yes, and chances are that students would be getting a Bachelor of Arts degree when taking a major in "Political Science". It certainly is possible to study politics and religion with the scientific method, but that doesn't make Liberalism or Conservationism a science, and neither does it make Creationism a science. What's your point?
While I agree with you that enabling an institution to grant science degrees to an assembly line of hack "scientists" is a terrible idea, the lack of respect most Slashdotters have for other beliefs is disheartening.
I agree, but it's also important to (try) to understand why. The last time I checked about 97% of people had religious beliefs, and probably a fairly large percentage (19%?, 50%?, 5%?) where either strapped at school by nuns, or buggered at church by priests. At the same time these same people (or types of people) are saying they need to put people in jail for downloading pornography and listening to rap music. I can understand the casual insults. These insults are stupid, but they are understandable. If there were less hypocrisy, stupidity, arrogance, and authoritarianism shown in the religious community then things would be a lot different. Religion has a history of abuse and insulting and even condemning those who are not religious. I think Atheists deserve a little slack considering what they've been through.
It's not to secularists who, in their perverse view of things, believe the government is the final word.
Secularists (I would hypothesize) are more likely to have no strongly held beliefs in government or religion. If anything can be proven in a logical and systematic way, then their beliefs will likely be stronger, but not absolute. Secularists don't just come out of thin air, they (in most cases) create their own belief systems through systematically thinking about things. As opposed to religious people who naturally succumb to religious beliefs through tradition and genetics (i.e. the religious brain).
The ironic thing is the scientific method ultimately brings one back to the same sorts of mysteries that Creationism want to jump straight to. Parallel universes, etc. The "god story" doesn't sound so wierd once you get to the advanced levels of stuff.
I think things like parallel universes are mathematical hypothesis. No scientist AFAIK is stating that they exist as a scientific fact.
And yes it is important to keep an open mind. Unfortunately closing oneself off in either a religious community or a scientific community has generally involved historical atrocities. Josef Mengele is no better than Jimmy Jones, and MKULTRA isn't any better than Sharia Law.
The study of Creationism (or anything that is not science) cannot be logically classed as a Science program. Just like one can study ballet, it doesn't make sense to give a science degree in ballet since ballet is not a science. Whether the belief in ballet is logical and consistent with reality is irrelevant.
Slashdot Mirror
The above post is not a Troll. The above post was pointing out a Flamebait that was using nasty language against me. Instead of Moderating the AC's post as Flamebait, you Moderate my post as Troll. Just because you AC Trolls and Flames are pro-religious and anti-secularist is no reason to treat them with reverence. Hating with moderation because of your religious beliefs is wrong. Stop the religious hatred, and stop making religious people look evil and hypocritical.
You obviously have a lot of religious friends who will moderate you up and moderate all my posts down. But that just means that YOU lose, because it exposes your community for what it is. You can moderate me down (again) because you know that I am Insightful. The Truth shall set me Free. I become stronger with every down mod.
The fact that you moderate my post as Flaimbait and do not moderate the post that I am alluding to as Flaimbait shows hypocrisy on your part. You are not "punishing" me in any way, but just reinforcing my beliefs that religious people are hypocrites and don't live up to the Christian (et al) doctrines of love and kindness that they preach. You and the other abusive moderators here are an embarrassment.
Here's a bunch. [google.com] I just SMOKED YOU BITCH!!! Don't ever question me again!! YOU GOT PWNED!!!
You should apologize to me for that Flame. And ask the Slashdot community to get rid of your +2 moderation if you have any sense of honesty and justice.
How many mod points do you moderation Trolls have? If you are an editor, I will expose you so you will lose your job. Otherwise you will just get bitch-slapped from Slashdot. This moderation abuse must stop.
My above post was NOT a Troll. Who keeps up-modding the Trolls that, for example state that "I just SMOKED YOU BITCH!!!" when these posts just give red-herring and bogus links along with their insults? ... It does nothing for the cause of religion. What it does do is just make the religious agenda appear more fanatical to neutral parties.
I will keep on exposing you religious nuts for what you are. Are you going to mod this post a Troll as well?
The problem is that the guys that were working on the big IPv6 transition quit there jobs to work on the Duke Nukem Forever project.
People with religious agendas should not mark Trolls Insights and Informative:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1170155&cid=27278273
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1170155&cid=27278335
And they should not mark my informative posts Troll:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1170155&cid=27278305
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1170155&cid=27278373
because (1) You are making yourself look foolish and reactionary
(2) You are wasting perfectly good moderation points
Also. If you are still here. Mark this post Troll as well. I will certainly do my best to help you get rid of your Mod points so that you won't abuse them with other people's posts.
No it's not just about software. When you buy an Apple computer, your not spending the extra $500.00 on hardware and software; you're spending the extra $500.00 on the Reality Distortion Field
That's OK. When people tend to continually question my answers then I get suspicious. BTW, I have been reading some of your other posts on the topic as well, just to get a better idea about you and whether you were just being a crank. I think probably not. People can certainly learn a lot by questioning; that's how Socrates learned -:)
Best regards,
UTW
... and decided that the correct way to resolve the issue was not to do analysis, not to consult the textbooks, but to vote on it. That taught me a lot about how science functions in a culture obsessed by democracy.
This example reminds me more of the inadequacies of the typical human brain. Political systems (unfortunately) and ideologies don't tend to have much influence on intelligence. Most people, unfortunately, are completely unaware of how stupid they are. Education, unfortunately, only tends to give people of false sense of intelligence.
Are you saying the "scientific community" does not have a common definition of the scientific method?? Because if so, we are screwed, and we are all wasting our time.
Would you agree?
No, not at all (on both points). And I'm starting to get the impression that you are Trolling.
From the Wikipedia:
Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove
I agree that this approach can be used as a tool, but I disagree that disproving anything should be a goal of science (or the scientific method) in itself. I could presume others may have sympathy with my opinion considering that "This article's factual accuracy is disputed."
I thought science was about disproving hypothesis, not proving fact. Or am I missing something?
That really depends on how you define science. I wouldn't grant anybody a monopoly on that. And there are certainly assumptions in the use of the word "fact". For me at least Science has more to do with systematic and logical experimentation and observation; the results of which are important, and not whether a hypothesis has been proven or disproven.
"Conservationism" is opposed to be "Conservatism". Damn stupid spell checkers.
Lots of universities have Political Science departments and programs. But no one protests about this.
Yes, and chances are that students would be getting a Bachelor of Arts degree when taking a major in "Political Science". It certainly is possible to study politics and religion with the scientific method, but that doesn't make Liberalism or Conservationism a science, and neither does it make Creationism a science. What's your point?
While I agree with you that enabling an institution to grant science degrees to an assembly line of hack "scientists" is a terrible idea, the lack of respect most Slashdotters have for other beliefs is disheartening.
I agree, but it's also important to (try) to understand why. The last time I checked about 97% of people had religious beliefs, and probably a fairly large percentage (19%?, 50%?, 5%?) where either strapped at school by nuns, or buggered at church by priests. At the same time these same people (or types of people) are saying they need to put people in jail for downloading pornography and listening to rap music. I can understand the casual insults. These insults are stupid, but they are understandable. If there were less hypocrisy, stupidity, arrogance, and authoritarianism shown in the religious community then things would be a lot different. Religion has a history of abuse and insulting and even condemning those who are not religious. I think Atheists deserve a little slack considering what they've been through.
It's not to secularists who, in their perverse view of things, believe the government is the final word.
Secularists (I would hypothesize) are more likely to have no strongly held beliefs in government or religion. If anything can be proven in a logical and systematic way, then their beliefs will likely be stronger, but not absolute. Secularists don't just come out of thin air, they (in most cases) create their own belief systems through systematically thinking about things. As opposed to religious people who naturally succumb to religious beliefs through tradition and genetics (i.e. the religious brain).
The ironic thing is the scientific method ultimately brings one back to the same sorts of mysteries that Creationism want to jump straight to. Parallel universes, etc. The "god story" doesn't sound so wierd once you get to the advanced levels of stuff.
I think things like parallel universes are mathematical hypothesis. No scientist AFAIK is stating that they exist as a scientific fact.
And yes it is important to keep an open mind. Unfortunately closing oneself off in either a religious community or a scientific community has generally involved historical atrocities. Josef Mengele is no better than Jimmy Jones, and MKULTRA isn't any better than Sharia Law.
... due to the snide, sophomoric, brain-washed, self-destructive, petty, clever fools who make up 98.317% of its posters.
[Bold added by me]. I'll take that as a compliment.
I guess Mr. Bad Astronomer felt like taking this opportunity to bash Texas without actually helping people get something done.
We are laughing with you, not at you.
The study of Creationism (or anything that is not science) cannot be logically classed as a Science program. Just like one can study ballet, it doesn't make sense to give a science degree in ballet since ballet is not a science. Whether the belief in ballet is logical and consistent with reality is irrelevant.
I may be "PWNED", but you didn't answer my question. You did give me a Google list of art colleges, etc.
What schools give degrees in pottery and basket weaving?
I guess my age is showing. I prefer to get my degrees through the more traditional approach: mail order.