As atheism includes no beliefs, it falls under none of those definitions.
Depends on whether we're talking hard atheism or weak atheism, aka agnosticism. An agnostic doesn't have a set of beliefs. A hard Atheist believes with religious fervor that there is no god. It's pretty damned close to a religion, because you cannot KNOW that there is no god. It's simply something that you believe.
There often is quite a bit of actual history located in the Bible once you strip it of the various "and lo, God said.." Sometimes it's the only surviving record. And sometimes it's inaccurate. But it is a pretty good record of who lived where, who was king when and what his decrees were. Is it a slanted history? Oh yes. But it is still useful to historians.
1. We legalize dope. You now have no reason to tell your kids not to do it, since gov't thinks it's OK..
I disagree with this very strongly because it implies a permission-based model of government, that only activities the government declares are fine are valid or moral, instead of a model where certain activities are banned by the government while everything else is allowed. It also places what is moral and what is not in the government sphere, and I object to that as well -- the government can only decide what is legal. It has historically been a terrible arbiter of what is moral, and I would tell my kids there is a big big difference between what you are legally allowed to do and what might be moral or wise to do. I personally feel that smoking, whether pot or tobacco products, should be legal, but I also strongly, strongly discourage it.
Gee, another *child* responds to the European. For your information, *kiddie*, that didn't used to happen on broadcast TV or radio 30 years or so ago here in the US, either.
mark
Oh no? Political attack ads have been quite negative throughout our history, and if you think the advertising of such is negative today, it's nothing compared to what went on in the 1820s.
Microsoft actually does the exact same thing. So where is the 1000 post thread about it?
The difference is that this is a change on Google's part. They used to be into the whole "Don't Be Evil" thing, that's gone. Microsoft never made any such claim. It's worth trumpeting that Google is no longer the white knight to Microsoft's dragon.
And I guarantee you that more threads and stories have been written about Microsoft's missteps on Slashdot than Google's.
You can do almost NOTHING in our society without money.
Do you know what having no money gets you? Living under a bridge. Sitting out in the winter rain because you need to beg for quarters on the street corner. How is that for loss of dignity?
Were the bankers white men, or Jewish men? Oh I see, it's in vogue to shit on white men, but you wouldn't have the courage to point out the disproportionate number of Jews involved in the bailouts on both the government side and the banker side.
Personally I don't think there is any Jew banker conspiracy or anything like that, I just like calling out fucking morons who blame everything on white men like cowards because it fits the current zeitgeist. People like you would have been cracking a whip in the old south, and marching jews into gas chambers in nazi Germany.
Actually I think most people conflate White with Jewish. It's an ethnicity and religion, not a race. Being Jewish doesn't even require specific parentage anymore.
Would you seriously try to argue that Jerry Seinfeld isn't white? Or better yet, Jon Stewart? this guy isn't white? Really?
this current period of not being utterly brutal racists is extremely brief relative to the span of western civilization. to be honest, there's not much reason to think it will last forever, or even very much longer. it's not a pleasant thought, really.
I'll be optimistic and say we have a few good reasons to believe that most of that is gone and will not be coming back, and that is that all races are far more integrated and in constant contact with each other. These racial charges were easy in the past when you were talking about an "other" you had little contact with.
Also, with inter-racial marriage becoming more and more prevalent, we may eventually come to a time where it's impossible to determine someone's race.
It's "just money?" The theft of all of someone's assets is a destruction of their life, and it can be as physically evident as the rape victim you mentioned.
Hell, you might be traumatized, but a rape victim can usually still return to work, life, society. The bankers' stole a retiree's entire asset portfolio? They have lost EVERYTHING. For many in that situation, I'm sure they would have seen a rape as preferable.
They distract because honestly, they are far more important than whether you can unlock a specific phone model that you want to use. They're distraction because most people just don't care and it's difficult to convince them that anyone really -would- care about something that, in the grand scheme of all the problems we have today, is so trivial.
Distract the masses with things like immigration reform, gay rights, abortion, things that get people excited
IE, things that are a lot more important than whether you can use the phone that AT&T is paying for on Sprint's network? Immigration reform, gay rights, abortion.. you seriously think those are "distraction issues?" I think you need to get a bit more perspective.
Miscavige still shows up at events like the church openings. Not necessarily non-church public, but at church events. Shelly Miscavige has been missing for six years; the speculation is that she's being held against her will, but that's speculation. Obviously if anyone had any evidence of this, to the police they would go.
My favorite comment that slipped past the censors who were cleansing the comments section on that The Atlantic promo for Scientology was "Such beautiful buildings! What a shame Shelly Miscavige wasn't able to join her husband David at these unveilings!"
If you are a Scientologist, but you don't believe in the Scientology creation myths, can you still call yourself a real Scientologist? I mean, didn't LRH believe that OT3+ documents or revelations were just as valid and real as going Clear?
Constitutional Rights are not subject to Public Opinion.
The Constitution is also not a religious document to be worshiped for its own sake. The founders intended that should it no longer serve the interests of the people, it be updated. Personally I favor the 'updating' part as opposed to 'ignoring,' a more common practice.
The Second Amendment. Ah, the Second Amendment. Does the ban against nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons violate the Second Amendment? How about rocket-propelled grenades? Those are banned, so it seems like we have no qualms about -some- limitations on the arms one can bear. So far the discussion is where to draw that line that we've already agreed passes constitutional muster.
As China is 12 hrs off of the US (DC to Shanghai), that seems problematic.
So maybe the Chinese guy worked 9pm - 5am (his time). Doesn't seem like that big a problem. Some people work really well like that, and maybe even prefer it. Others just can't work at night.
Economies are far more complex today? The credit ratings for any country would tank? Short-term borrowing is critical to the way businesses and governments work today?
Some people create because they enjoy creating, and putting it online for free
That's fine, but to host your data takes money. It's not just "out there on the Internet" available... somehow. It requires drives, servers, bandwidth, maintenance. Who pays for that if not you. While you may upload free art, hosting companies don't give away free bandwidth. Instagram isn't buying art. It's getting the money needed to make it available on the Internet.
Slashdot Mirror
As atheism includes no beliefs, it falls under none of those definitions.
Depends on whether we're talking hard atheism or weak atheism, aka agnosticism. An agnostic doesn't have a set of beliefs. A hard Atheist believes with religious fervor that there is no god. It's pretty damned close to a religion, because you cannot KNOW that there is no god. It's simply something that you believe.
While I may disagree with some of your points, I applaud any man who sends another to that website.
There often is quite a bit of actual history located in the Bible once you strip it of the various "and lo, God said.."
Sometimes it's the only surviving record. And sometimes it's inaccurate. But it is a pretty good record of who lived where, who was king when and what his decrees were.
Is it a slanted history? Oh yes. But it is still useful to historians.
So, who is the sensationalistic piece of shit, timothy or eldavojohn?
Both. eldavojohn wrote the incorrect summary, timothy wrote the incorrect article title.
Calling that terrorism greatly lessons the impact and importance of the word "terrorism." That's some serious watering-down there.
1. We legalize dope. You now have no reason to tell your kids not to do it, since gov't thinks it's OK..
I disagree with this very strongly because it implies a permission-based model of government, that only activities the government declares are fine are valid or moral, instead of a model where certain activities are banned by the government while everything else is allowed. It also places what is moral and what is not in the government sphere, and I object to that as well -- the government can only decide what is legal. It has historically been a terrible arbiter of what is moral, and I would tell my kids there is a big big difference between what you are legally allowed to do and what might be moral or wise to do. I personally feel that smoking, whether pot or tobacco products, should be legal, but I also strongly, strongly discourage it.
That is a pretty feeble argument. Human beings can always say no. Animals can't.
Heh! Well unless you tie ropes to it, a horse has some pretty emphatic ways of saying no, many of which are hazardous to your health.
But I would be against bestiality for the same reason I'm against child porn -- all partners should be able to give informed consent.
Why can't we have good e-mail without advertisements as an option
Ah yes, the old situation:
*) Good email.
*) For free.
*) No ads.
Pick two!
Gee, another *child* responds to the European. For your information, *kiddie*, that didn't used to happen on broadcast TV or radio 30 years or so ago here in the US, either.
mark
Oh no? Political attack ads have been quite negative throughout our history, and if you think the advertising of such is negative today, it's nothing compared to what went on in the 1820s.
Microsoft actually does the exact same thing. So where is the 1000 post thread about it?
The difference is that this is a change on Google's part. They used to be into the whole "Don't Be Evil" thing, that's gone. Microsoft never made any such claim. It's worth trumpeting that Google is no longer the white knight to Microsoft's dragon.
And I guarantee you that more threads and stories have been written about Microsoft's missteps on Slashdot than Google's.
You can do almost NOTHING in our society without money.
Do you know what having no money gets you? Living under a bridge. Sitting out in the winter rain because you need to beg for quarters on the street corner. How is that for loss of dignity?
Were the bankers white men, or Jewish men? Oh I see, it's in vogue to shit on white men, but you wouldn't have the courage to point out the disproportionate number of Jews involved in the bailouts on both the government side and the banker side.
Personally I don't think there is any Jew banker conspiracy or anything like that, I just like calling out fucking morons who blame everything on white men like cowards because it fits the current zeitgeist. People like you would have been cracking a whip in the old south, and marching jews into gas chambers in nazi Germany.
Actually I think most people conflate White with Jewish. It's an ethnicity and religion, not a race. Being Jewish doesn't even require specific parentage anymore.
Would you seriously try to argue that Jerry Seinfeld isn't white? Or better yet, Jon Stewart? this guy isn't white? Really?
this current period of not being utterly brutal racists is extremely brief relative to the span of western civilization. to be honest, there's not much reason to think it will last forever, or even very much longer. it's not a pleasant thought, really.
I'll be optimistic and say we have a few good reasons to believe that most of that is gone and will not be coming back, and that is that all races are far more integrated and in constant contact with each other. These racial charges were easy in the past when you were talking about an "other" you had little contact with.
Also, with inter-racial marriage becoming more and more prevalent, we may eventually come to a time where it's impossible to determine someone's race.
It's "just money?" The theft of all of someone's assets is a destruction of their life, and it can be as physically evident as the rape victim you mentioned.
Hell, you might be traumatized, but a rape victim can usually still return to work, life, society.
The bankers' stole a retiree's entire asset portfolio? They have lost EVERYTHING. For many in that situation, I'm sure they would have seen a rape as preferable.
Can the No True Scotsman fallacy even apply if no living Scotsman ever existed?
That's _if_ there is a Civil War. Hitler and Mussolini took over without one, as far as I can recall.
Now is not then. We live in an entirely different world now.
They distract because honestly, they are far more important than whether you can unlock a specific phone model that you want to use. They're distraction because most people just don't care and it's difficult to convince them that anyone really -would- care about something that, in the grand scheme of all the problems we have today, is so trivial.
Distract the masses with things like immigration reform, gay rights, abortion, things that get people excited
IE, things that are a lot more important than whether you can use the phone that AT&T is paying for on Sprint's network?
Immigration reform, gay rights, abortion.. you seriously think those are "distraction issues?" I think you need to get a bit more perspective.
Miscavige still shows up at events like the church openings. Not necessarily non-church public, but at church events. Shelly Miscavige has been missing for six years; the speculation is that she's being held against her will, but that's speculation. Obviously if anyone had any evidence of this, to the police they would go.
My favorite comment that slipped past the censors who were cleansing the comments section on that The Atlantic promo for Scientology was "Such beautiful buildings! What a shame Shelly Miscavige wasn't able to join her husband David at these unveilings!"
If you are a Scientologist, but you don't believe in the Scientology creation myths, can you still call yourself a real Scientologist? I mean, didn't LRH believe that OT3+ documents or revelations were just as valid and real as going Clear?
Constitutional Rights are not subject to Public Opinion.
The Constitution is also not a religious document to be worshiped for its own sake. The founders intended that should it no longer serve the interests of the people, it be updated. Personally I favor the 'updating' part as opposed to 'ignoring,' a more common practice.
The Second Amendment. Ah, the Second Amendment. Does the ban against nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons violate the Second Amendment? How about rocket-propelled grenades? Those are banned, so it seems like we have no qualms about -some- limitations on the arms one can bear. So far the discussion is where to draw that line that we've already agreed passes constitutional muster.
"Trivial" is in the eye of the beholder. He broke the law, his problem.
Thanks for your input, Inspector Javert.
As China is 12 hrs off of the US (DC to Shanghai), that seems problematic.
So maybe the Chinese guy worked 9pm - 5am (his time). Doesn't seem like that big a problem. Some people work really well like that, and maybe even prefer it. Others just can't work at night.
Economies are far more complex today? The credit ratings for any country would tank? Short-term borrowing is critical to the way businesses and governments work today?
Some people create because they enjoy creating, and putting it online for free
That's fine, but to host your data takes money. It's not just "out there on the Internet" available... somehow.
It requires drives, servers, bandwidth, maintenance. Who pays for that if not you.
While you may upload free art, hosting companies don't give away free bandwidth.
Instagram isn't buying art. It's getting the money needed to make it available on the Internet.