We can now expect to see them add a little "please return this CD to us when you're finished with it" to each promo disk.
You can't send someone something unsolicited and then impose conditions on their usage of it.
Credit card companies would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
In soviet union, CD returns YOU!
Also, what about those government rebate checks... dis you ask for them? No, but there are certain terms of use - you can't, for example, change the amount by adding a bunch of zeros before the decimal point...
Your line of logic is illogical - it insists on everything being either black or white, with no shades of grey. Just as not all animals can bark, not all "organized matter" (which is what humans are) is capable of feeling. Is a magnet the same as a human? Nope.
To make this sort of argument, one must either be suffering from borderline personality disorder, or incapable of critical thought, dishonest, or just trolling. I vote troll, but then again, it's Friday !!!!!
Baruch Spinoza believed in a God. So did Isaac Newton. The Deists from the old Empire of Reason, the philosophers of Natural Law, believed in God. Immanuel Kant believed in God. There are plenty of rational people whose epistemology includes the possibility of subjective truth. They believe in God and remain rational.
Again, your post shows that belief in religion lacks critical thought. The gods of the old roman empire are not the same gods that Spinoza or Newton believed in - so, which one is the "real deal?" At least one of them isn't, so your "argument from authority", always a bad idea, fails on the face.
Now, you have suggested that people who believe in God - theists - don't want to (or can't) think logically. You are taking a group of individuals, whose own minds and experiences you have never personally known, and made an assumption about them.
I'm not "suggesting" - I'm stating as a fact that these people are indulging in superstition, that they've checked their brain cells at the door in their unquestioning acceptance of a belief with no objective proof. What ever happened to "The person who makes extrordinary claims must provide extrordinary proof"? Take it on faith? They should, if they were capable of critical thinking, take it with a grain of salt.
In fact, your statement about "anyone who believes in god" is a religious one
No, it's a statement *about* religion, not a "religious statement. Just like if I make a statement *about* money, my statement is not itself money. Don't confuse the label for a thing with the thing itself (something object-oriented programmers forget all the time).
Perhaps you have witnessed poor and illogical thinking, and then made judgments about the conclusions arrived at by religious people who participate in such thinking. Argumentum ad logicam
They believe in something extrordinary without any proof whatsoever. It is *their* judgment that I question. *Their* inability to think critically. *Their ability to step outside the bounds that they have vested so much in, socially, emotionally, psychologically, and look at the FACTS. Since they have no FACTS to back up their beliefs, what is left is "I believe... " without any reason to believe except "because!" That works for a two-year-old. It shouldn't for adults.
I didn't comment vis morals because I believe that they are entirely subjective, same as good and evil. A rock has no morals. Morals and ethics are human constructs.
Why is that "by definition"? To admit as much is to admit that it is just supposition and superstition, w/o any basis in the real world.
Because, unless god, Shiva, the Buddha, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster come down and prove to us they exist, they are outside what we can objectively measure or prove to be true. For the same reason that science can't really intelligently speak about what happened before the big bang, or what 'caused' the big bang -- it's simply outside of what we can know or actually speak about.
I guessed you missed it; there was a recent article about how we just might be getting our first glimpses from BEFORE the big bang. Unlike the thousands of gods that humans have invented over the centuries. So many gods, and no proof that any one of them ever existed outside of the imagination, which is why religious belief, after so much time, fails the critical reason test.
Instead of accusing me of making ad hominem attacks, why not read his fucking bio? It's called "C.S. Lewis, Surprised by Joy", and he details his "fagging" other kids at school; I put it down after reaching that section, and his lame attempts to whitewash what he did, and walked away from any and all religious beliefs shortly after.
By definition, no proof of the existence of god can be made, other than faith.
Why is that "by definition"? To admit as much is to admit that it is just supposition and superstition, w/o any basis in the real world.
almost all forms of "moral" reasoning derive from either the belief that a diving being laid down the laws,
Did they have scuba gear, or just a snorkel and fins?
beliefs, are not, and can't really ever be to the level of mathematical rigor you're looking for.
I believe that the moon is NOT made of green cheese. That belief can be tested. I believe that I have a certain amount of money in my pocket. That belief can also be tested. I like chocolate. That belief was tested 5 minutes ago. All the examples I cate can be backed up with evidence. to say that beliefs cannot be backed up with evidence is foolish.
To say that you cannot back up the existence of god with any evidence, that it mst be accepted on faith, is evidence enough that it is just another silly superstition.
... in other words, it's just a belief; if you have evidence, solid proof, please present it, or admit that it IS just a belief, and that it fails to stand up under critical examination as anything more than mere superstition.
Funny how you and others place so much faith in C S Lewis without having read his bio. He was a closet homosexual who, while in school, took part in ass-raping other students, having been through the same himself (British education system in those days was rife with same-sex abuse). His explanations about his actions ("it was common") were no excuse then, and they aren't now. Rape is rape.
A better interpretation of C. S. Lewis' actions would be that his guilt over his actions led him to "make amends" by pushing religion, as a way to "redeem" his own life in his own eyes.
If it is possible to postulate the existence of god(s) in a way consistent with observation, then it is not really illogical.
Statement of fact: Hasn't been done.
Safe bet: Will never be done.
If it hasn't been done for the thousands of different gods we've concocted over the millenia, it isn't going to happen now. WE made uo all those previous gods, not vice versa.
Among the best critical thinkers in history, most believed in "god"
There were also people who thought the world was flat, that the earth was the center of the universe, that rotten meat turned into bugs, and that ulcers were caused by stress; that a "critical thinker" in times past espoused a belief in a god shows they weren't applying their critical thinking to *all* their beliefs.
I know a few people who still believe in god - I'm wearing them down to the point where, in the last year, another one has pretty much "parted ways" with their former beliefs.
You see, that's the problem - religion is about beliefs, not facts. "You have to have faith" doesn't stand up to critical thinking.
but his Catholic upbringing and Jesuit education are still firmly entrenched in his life
In other words, he believes, not because of any evidence, but because that's the way he was brought up. Same as we have cancer doctors who can't quit smoking.
Show me evidence for the existence of god, or it's all just superstition. None of this "take it on faith" bullshit - by that token, there's more proof that I am god - after all, I can be shown to exist.
The results aren't "inconclusive". God doesn't exist. There is no evidence for the existence of any sort of god, and there's much evidence that, throughout human history, we've invented so many different gods as a way to both manipulate others and to "'splain away" that which we didn't understand.
Who created God? Believers can't answer that. Critical thinkers can answer it easily - "We did." History shows this has always been the case.
Your claim that you are capable of critical thinking and logic because you are a computer engineer shows you fail at both critical thinking and logic.
Just ask anyone who's ever used a Windows computer what they think of your claim.
Engineers make incredibly stupid mistakes in all fields. Ask NASA. miles/km conversions, anyone? Bridges that fall down unexpectedly and kill 5 people because someone made a bad calculation? Engineers are no better than anyone else at avoiding stupid mistakes.
C. S. Lewis tried to justify his sexual abuse of other boys in school by writing that it was something that everyone did. He was a hypocrite, a closet gay and a paedophile, just like so many other "christian leaders".
"spirituality" - another word for believing in something with no physical evidence to back it up.
My religion says nothing about the physical world, and my science says nothing about the supernatural.
Maybe YOUR science doesn't but mine does. It includes evolution, for example, and certainly has no room for the "you have to believe it because it's written here". Like gays and lesbians are "sinning"? What a load of crap. The latest studies show they have more stable long-term relationships than heterosexual couples. Or the contradiction between "abortion is wrong" and "all children go to heaven." Sounds to me that "true believers" should abort all their kids, so as to guarantee that none of them grow up to be "evil-doers."
Religion is like computers - garbage in, garbage out.
I posted in this thread before it dissolved into a religious flamewar and all I got was this lousy T-shirt.
Since you brought up religion... I saw a quote in todays' paper asking about whether people believe in bad luck on Friday the 13th (Today is Friday the 13th, btw). One wman said "Oh no, I have God watching over me, I don't have to worry. I don't believe in superstitions."
My irony meter pegged. Of course, critical thinking and logic are anathema to anyone who believes in god.
Several single-parents tried to be excused, but all were denied because covering for their kids was considered "an inconvenience" and not a necessity.
What would have happened if they had brought their kids along and said "sorry for the inconvenience.":-)
Or if they had left their kids unattended, and when someone complains, tells child protective services that a judge has declared that child care is a convenience, and not a necessity?
...not that I minded, it was a break from computing:)
Shit, doesn't that violate the minimum wage laws?
Maybe if US jurors were more adequately compensated, they'd be better able to focus ib the evidence being presented instead of worrying about how they're going to cover their bills, and you'd have fewer people trying all sorts of ass-goose theories trying to explain to judges why they should be excused from jury duty. $15? That doesn't even cover parking!
Comp was $90/day, transportation and parking, day care expenses, plus morning snacks, lunch, afternoon snacks, and if it was a really bad week, the judge would order that we be taken to a REAL restaurant for lunch (linen tableclothes, etc., not a "mac-meal"). This is completely tax-free, at both the provincial and federal levels. Its not like you have a choice to serve. People have even been grabbed off the street by the court sherrif (with the assistance of the police) when the jury pool was exhausted prematurely.
Considering that a murder trial can easily cost over a quarter million, there's no reason to starve the jury or give them even more to worry about than they already have.
Additionally, jurors can request up to 6 hours of psychological counseling each if they ask for it, from the professional psychologist or psychiatrist of their choice, after trials that are particularly stressful.
It's reasonable, because of the burdens that some trials (murder, sex-related crimes) place on jurors. You can't ask someone to sit on a jury for a month and have them too distracted about how they're going to make their rent or pay for their kids' daycare, especially if they're a single parent. The defendent wouldn't be receiving a fair trial in such cases.
Slashdot Mirror
Credit card companies would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
In soviet union, CD returns YOU!
Also, what about those government rebate checks ... dis you ask for them? No, but there are certain terms of use - you can't, for example, change the amount by adding a bunch of zeros before the decimal point ...
Your line of logic is illogical - it insists on everything being either black or white, with no shades of grey. Just as not all animals can bark, not all "organized matter" (which is what humans are) is capable of feeling. Is a magnet the same as a human? Nope.
To make this sort of argument, one must either be suffering from borderline personality disorder, or incapable of critical thought, dishonest, or just trolling. I vote troll, but then again, it's Friday !!!!!
Again, your post shows that belief in religion lacks critical thought. The gods of the old roman empire are not the same gods that Spinoza or Newton believed in - so, which one is the "real deal?" At least one of them isn't, so your "argument from authority", always a bad idea, fails on the face.
I'm not "suggesting" - I'm stating as a fact that these people are indulging in superstition, that they've checked their brain cells at the door in their unquestioning acceptance of a belief with no objective proof. What ever happened to "The person who makes extrordinary claims must provide extrordinary proof"? Take it on faith? They should, if they were capable of critical thinking, take it with a grain of salt.
No, it's a statement *about* religion, not a "religious statement. Just like if I make a statement *about* money, my statement is not itself money. Don't confuse the label for a thing with the thing itself (something object-oriented programmers forget all the time).
They believe in something extrordinary without any proof whatsoever. It is *their* judgment that I question. *Their* inability to think critically. *Their ability to step outside the bounds that they have vested so much in, socially, emotionally, psychologically, and look at the FACTS. Since they have no FACTS to back up their beliefs, what is left is "I believe ... " without any reason to believe except "because!" That works for a two-year-old. It shouldn't for adults.
I didn't comment vis morals because I believe that they are entirely subjective, same as good and evil. A rock has no morals. Morals and ethics are human constructs.
I guessed you missed it; there was a recent article about how we just might be getting our first glimpses from BEFORE the big bang. Unlike the thousands of gods that humans have invented over the centuries. So many gods, and no proof that any one of them ever existed outside of the imagination, which is why religious belief, after so much time, fails the critical reason test.
We can now expect to see them add a little "please return this CD to us when you're finished with it" to each promo disk.
Instead of accusing me of making ad hominem attacks, why not read his fucking bio? It's called "C.S. Lewis, Surprised by Joy", and he details his "fagging" other kids at school; I put it down after reaching that section, and his lame attempts to whitewash what he did, and walked away from any and all religious beliefs shortly after.
Why is that "by definition"? To admit as much is to admit that it is just supposition and superstition, w/o any basis in the real world.
Did they have scuba gear, or just a snorkel and fins?
I believe that the moon is NOT made of green cheese. That belief can be tested. I believe that I have a certain amount of money in my pocket. That belief can also be tested. I like chocolate. That belief was tested 5 minutes ago. All the examples I cate can be backed up with evidence. to say that beliefs cannot be backed up with evidence is foolish.
To say that you cannot back up the existence of god with any evidence, that it mst be accepted on faith, is evidence enough that it is just another silly superstition.
Funny how you and others place so much faith in C S Lewis without having read his bio. He was a closet homosexual who, while in school, took part in ass-raping other students, having been through the same himself (British education system in those days was rife with same-sex abuse). His explanations about his actions ("it was common") were no excuse then, and they aren't now. Rape is rape.
A better interpretation of C. S. Lewis' actions would be that his guilt over his actions led him to "make amends" by pushing religion, as a way to "redeem" his own life in his own eyes.
Statement of fact: Hasn't been done.
Safe bet: Will never be done.
If it hasn't been done for the thousands of different gods we've concocted over the millenia, it isn't going to happen now. WE made uo all those previous gods, not vice versa.
There were also people who thought the world was flat, that the earth was the center of the universe, that rotten meat turned into bugs, and that ulcers were caused by stress; that a "critical thinker" in times past espoused a belief in a god shows they weren't applying their critical thinking to *all* their beliefs.
I know a few people who still believe in god - I'm wearing them down to the point where, in the last year, another one has pretty much "parted ways" with their former beliefs.
You see, that's the problem - religion is about beliefs, not facts. "You have to have faith" doesn't stand up to critical thinking.
In other words, he believes, not because of any evidence, but because that's the way he was brought up. Same as we have cancer doctors who can't quit smoking.
Show me evidence for the existence of god, or it's all just superstition. None of this "take it on faith" bullshit - by that token, there's more proof that I am god - after all, I can be shown to exist.
The results aren't "inconclusive". God doesn't exist. There is no evidence for the existence of any sort of god, and there's much evidence that, throughout human history, we've invented so many different gods as a way to both manipulate others and to "'splain away" that which we didn't understand.
Who created God? Believers can't answer that. Critical thinkers can answer it easily - "We did." History shows this has always been the case.
Your claim that you are capable of critical thinking and logic because you are a computer engineer shows you fail at both critical thinking and logic.
Just ask anyone who's ever used a Windows computer what they think of your claim.
Engineers make incredibly stupid mistakes in all fields. Ask NASA. miles/km conversions, anyone? Bridges that fall down unexpectedly and kill 5 people because someone made a bad calculation? Engineers are no better than anyone else at avoiding stupid mistakes.
Or just go read Dilbert.
C. S. Lewis tried to justify his sexual abuse of other boys in school by writing that it was something that everyone did. He was a hypocrite, a closet gay and a paedophile, just like so many other "christian leaders".
"spirituality" - another word for believing in something with no physical evidence to back it up.
Maybe YOUR science doesn't but mine does. It includes evolution, for example, and certainly has no room for the "you have to believe it because it's written here". Like gays and lesbians are "sinning"? What a load of crap. The latest studies show they have more stable long-term relationships than heterosexual couples. Or the contradiction between "abortion is wrong" and "all children go to heaven." Sounds to me that "true believers" should abort all their kids, so as to guarantee that none of them grow up to be "evil-doers."
Religion is like computers - garbage in, garbage out.
It was in this morning's dead-tree Journal de Montreal (yes, I read them all ...)
Since you brought up religion ... I saw a quote in todays' paper asking about whether people believe in bad luck on Friday the 13th (Today is Friday the 13th, btw). One wman said "Oh no, I have God watching over me, I don't have to worry. I don't believe in superstitions."
My irony meter pegged. Of course, critical thinking and logic are anathema to anyone who believes in god.
It's not just him - all "Web 2.0 consultants" are effluent clogging the 'tubes
Effluent == raw sewage, which makes sense becase most politics is like a septic tank - the big chunks float to the top.
So go into your preferences and disable the whole slashdot discussion system and go back to showing nested comments @ -1.
What, your bike was made by Microsoft? Why not get an Apple iBike?
What would have happened if they had brought their kids along and said "sorry for the inconvenience." :-)
Or if they had left their kids unattended, and when someone complains, tells child protective services that a judge has declared that child care is a convenience, and not a necessity?
Shit, doesn't that violate the minimum wage laws?
Maybe if US jurors were more adequately compensated, they'd be better able to focus ib the evidence being presented instead of worrying about how they're going to cover their bills, and you'd have fewer people trying all sorts of ass-goose theories trying to explain to judges why they should be excused from jury duty. $15? That doesn't even cover parking!
Comp was $90/day, transportation and parking, day care expenses, plus morning snacks, lunch, afternoon snacks, and if it was a really bad week, the judge would order that we be taken to a REAL restaurant for lunch (linen tableclothes, etc., not a "mac-meal"). This is completely tax-free, at both the provincial and federal levels. Its not like you have a choice to serve. People have even been grabbed off the street by the court sherrif (with the assistance of the police) when the jury pool was exhausted prematurely.
Considering that a murder trial can easily cost over a quarter million, there's no reason to starve the jury or give them even more to worry about than they already have.
Additionally, jurors can request up to 6 hours of psychological counseling each if they ask for it, from the professional psychologist or psychiatrist of their choice, after trials that are particularly stressful.
It's reasonable, because of the burdens that some trials (murder, sex-related crimes) place on jurors. You can't ask someone to sit on a jury for a month and have them too distracted about how they're going to make their rent or pay for their kids' daycare, especially if they're a single parent. The defendent wouldn't be receiving a fair trial in such cases.