To imagine that I was referring to the NIV bible is wrong. Many christian faiths, (Catholics, Episcopal, Orthodox) include in their readings, studies, and bibles a great many of the writings that you allude to.
On the other hand, you refer to writings that span centuries and centuries. I was referring to the writings of those that were there, not someone that said Jesus of Nazareth never lived, and said it 300 years after the fact. If you don't want to believe what the people that were there all independently confirmed in writing, that Jesus of Nazareth lived, performed miracles, and was crucified, then rose from the dead, then okay. . . but historians accept this. (many do not believe in the resurrection)
So do I have a hard time believing that several people all got together and made up a great story, it was confirmed by hundreds more, started Christianity from nothing, then spent their lives spreading the lie? To what end? Most of them were martyred, and knew that that was what lie ahead of them, yet they continued.
So am I more convinced by the gospel writings of those who were there, or any of the slew of writings of people rallying against a religion over the course of several thousand years? Find me a first hand account denying that Jesus did any of the things in the Bible, written by someone that was there.
I am not saying that it has to be true because a handful of people wrote something, but I am saying that the vast majority of what you linked is a very vocal un-historical minority, written hundreds of years after the events.
I will not get into a religious debate on slashdot of all places, but the challenge of
you must show that it would be more miraculous for the testimony to be wrong than for the event to have actually occurred.
Is rather obviously false. Are you saying that you always believe the thing that is simply the least "miraculous"? That would put you firmly in the group that believes 100% in current science, not even allowing the possibility that humans make mistakes, especially in science.
I won't try and sell you on religion here, but surely you don't live your life this way.
People have beliefs and feelings that are contrary to everything logical about a situation, and these aren't wrong to have, and a great deal of the time they aren't incorrect at all.
Miraculous things DO happen each day, and whatever they are due to is irrelevant, the fact exists that we as humans accept the fact that they do happen in stride.
Total faith in an un-provable God sounds ridiculous, but living your life only believing in things that can be explained is more so, namely because -no- one does it, and that historically it is those who thing, believe, and act on the more "miraculous" phenomena in life that make advances in their fields.
To say that I shouldn't believe that a man can rise from the dead, is more silly that saying one can't. People wake up after being clinically dead all the time. Miraculous? maybe. Certainly more miraculous than staying dead, but that doesn't mean that I (or you) don't believe that these people and their experiences are real.
Science will never take us so far as to explain everything and everyone, there will always be room for the unexpected, surprises, irrational beliefs, and yes, faith.
This is a distinction that I feel people on both sides of the line have a hard time articulating. Most religions aren't intrinsically opposed to science, but they do feel that when science has the goal of setting ones self up as a god, "playing god" it is wrong. Most counselors, psychiatrists and psychologists would agree that this is unhealthy, both mentally and socially.
The portrayal of scientists in the eyes of a great deal of religious followers is a man that is constantly screaming "Look what I discovered to be true!", then realizing later that it was at worst wrong, and at best more complicated than it seemed at the time.
Does this mean science is bad? Heavens no. I am an engineer just like (presumably) you. This does mean that I do not put my faith in science. I believe that science, like everything else is a field that is constantly changing, finding itself to be false, fixing itself, and moving forward stronger for it.
I guess what i am trying to say is that everyone has faith, the only difference being what they place it in.
Please explain how someone would "prove" anything that happened 2000 years ago without relying on the books that were written at the time. OR please find books that were written at the time that denied the resurrection. I am not trying to be snotty here, but when you look at history, the bible is a compilation of the best preserved writings from that time, and is generally accepted from a HISTORICAL pov as accurate.
"But "meaning" is a totally human created concept."
As someone who does not believe in God, i would ask you what exactly isn't a human created concept.
That is kinda like saying i have the right to buy a gas car, or a diesel car. And i also have the right to buy Gasoline or Diesel. So why cant i put diesel in my gas car?
Some things don't work. The government shouldn't state that all cars must be able to use gas OR diesel.
The local governments represent ALL of the people in their area, not just the ones that use comcast. The great numbers of other non-comcast using members of that area are hurt by that idea. The government leasing the right-of way generates less tax burden for everyone they represent.
They should lease to everyone that wants to bury cables (and they do).
Why should the (local) government be the watchdog and be willing to lose money (and be forced to raise taxes) because a few people think that their service is bad?
I dare say that your second point is moot to the point of ridiculousness. Comcast dosen't have infrastructure passing through 99% of its customers land. Most all of it will either be on public land (yay lower taxes), or a very small part through private land. Are you going to really say that those people should cut comcast off (when most of the leases will be for 20+ years), resulting in a loss of income for them, and worse service?
The people in the best position to decide what happens to comcast is their users. If enough people really dont like it, the company will fail. You are willing for someone else to take a risk to wake comcast better, but you are not willing to do anything yourself. If you hate it, quit. simple and easy. If you are willing to pay per month, it is worth it to you. end of story.
The wonderful thing about a free market is that the second someone does it better, that business will uproot the poor one.
Yeah, place the obligation on others instead of the users of the service.
Here is a capitalistic idea. . . . if YOU don't like the service, YOU stop using it, stop putting the onus of responsibility on someone else.
As was posted elsewhere. . . trespassing is trespassing even if land is not fenced or posted private. Sorry, it has not been legally established that an open router gives consent to use that person's internet.
Except if your listening to my car's radio through the window 1) degraded my listening 2)could get me in legal trouble (p2p, child porn . . . ) and 3)potentially could cost me more (bandwidth limited isp's)
Just because one option is "easier and more cost effective" than another doesn't mean that that one should be chosen. I find it. ..sad. . that my comment was rated as trolling. I am absolutely serious. Stealing is stealing. Stealing is illegal. You can give me a number of arguments about how a novice won't notice what network he connects to. Fine, that is what the "criminalize PURPOSELY surfing the Internet... " is there for. My internet connection is my property. If someone steals it, they are infringing on my rights, that is what government is for. yes, there are consequences to not securing your connection, but i think that there shoudl also be consequences for knowingly stealing someone else's property as well. I guess not everyone has morals.
Wait, so basically what you are saying is that it shouldn't be illegal to steal something if it is stolen easily. Leaving your car unlocked doesn't make it legal for someone else to use it. Easier maybe, but not legal.
In the context of the OP, linux isn't a viable alternative. If the mother's 13 year old son had begged her to install linux, I guarantee she would have something real to complain about.
The issue here isn't that vista is "bad", the article, or any other account of the story gives no hard reasons for her to not like vista other than "it was so difficult". Lets face facts here. This story made it to slashdot because the majority of the users here dislike Microsoft. The article was cross listed under "Firehose:Mom blasts Ballmer over kid's crappy Vista OS". Does this sound like un-opinionated reporting to you? Two of the five tags are "humor" and "haha". Is this story really about how bad Microsoft is? Or is the experience more about the humor of an inept mother who can't get her computer to "work" for her 13 year old girl who wanted widgets. The majority of users here get a kick out of reading about ballmer getting embarrassed, and take the opportunity to talk about how much vista "sucks". I am sorry, its not Miscrosoft's fault if companies refuse to write stable drivers. If this were a new mac os, it would be hard coded into the os to not run on certain hardware. You don't see people bitching about the new mac os that simply will not install on their computers. If this were Linux you would have to compile and hack the drivers yourself. That sounds a little over the head of a woman that can't install a major os.
I find it funny that everyone here fails to realize that people use windows because they like it. People use Vista because they like it. Businesses aren't switching to vista not because they don't like vista, but because their xp machines are running fine. I like how people use people staying with xp and not upgrading to vista to talk about how much microsoft sucks. Sorry to tell you, microsoft made xp as well.
Sorry to burst your mac bubble, but using a mac is paying alot more for something just because you don't want to think. Thinking about upgrading your video card to the latest? Sorry, you use a mac. Want to get tv capture card? go to the apple store and buy whatever they offer you. Windows is a capitalistic dream. You can pluck hardware from a hundred different vendors, and it works.
If you are mad at Microsoft for having a monopoly, its time to consider how they got there, and why. Linux has been around for a while, and its free. If it were a replacement for the desktop os for the average user, it would have replaced it by now. Sorry. I run linux to host my webpage and mail server, but years away from vista's usability. You can disagree all you want, but it would seem that the majority of computer user's agree with me.
Slashdot Mirror
People find parallels when they go looking for them
On the other hand, you refer to writings that span centuries and centuries. I was referring to the writings of those that were there, not someone that said Jesus of Nazareth never lived, and said it 300 years after the fact. If you don't want to believe what the people that were there all independently confirmed in writing, that Jesus of Nazareth lived, performed miracles, and was crucified, then rose from the dead, then okay. . . but historians accept this. (many do not believe in the resurrection)
So do I have a hard time believing that several people all got together and made up a great story, it was confirmed by hundreds more, started Christianity from nothing, then spent their lives spreading the lie? To what end? Most of them were martyred, and knew that that was what lie ahead of them, yet they continued.
So am I more convinced by the gospel writings of those who were there, or any of the slew of writings of people rallying against a religion over the course of several thousand years? Find me a first hand account denying that Jesus did any of the things in the Bible, written by someone that was there.
I am not saying that it has to be true because a handful of people wrote something, but I am saying that the vast majority of what you linked is a very vocal un-historical minority, written hundreds of years after the events.
you must show that it would be more miraculous for the testimony to be wrong than for the event to have actually occurred.
Is rather obviously false. Are you saying that you always believe the thing that is simply the least "miraculous"? That would put you firmly in the group that believes 100% in current science, not even allowing the possibility that humans make mistakes, especially in science.
I won't try and sell you on religion here, but surely you don't live your life this way.
People have beliefs and feelings that are contrary to everything logical about a situation, and these aren't wrong to have, and a great deal of the time they aren't incorrect at all.
Miraculous things DO happen each day, and whatever they are due to is irrelevant, the fact exists that we as humans accept the fact that they do happen in stride.
Total faith in an un-provable God sounds ridiculous, but living your life only believing in things that can be explained is more so, namely because -no- one does it, and that historically it is those who thing, believe, and act on the more "miraculous" phenomena in life that make advances in their fields.
To say that I shouldn't believe that a man can rise from the dead, is more silly that saying one can't. People wake up after being clinically dead all the time. Miraculous? maybe. Certainly more miraculous than staying dead, but that doesn't mean that I (or you) don't believe that these people and their experiences are real.
Science will never take us so far as to explain everything and everyone, there will always be room for the unexpected, surprises, irrational beliefs, and yes, faith.
This is a distinction that I feel people on both sides of the line have a hard time articulating. Most religions aren't intrinsically opposed to science, but they do feel that when science has the goal of setting ones self up as a god, "playing god" it is wrong. Most counselors, psychiatrists and psychologists would agree that this is unhealthy, both mentally and socially.
The portrayal of scientists in the eyes of a great deal of religious followers is a man that is constantly screaming "Look what I discovered to be true!", then realizing later that it was at worst wrong, and at best more complicated than it seemed at the time.
Does this mean science is bad? Heavens no. I am an engineer just like (presumably) you. This does mean that I do not put my faith in science. I believe that science, like everything else is a field that is constantly changing, finding itself to be false, fixing itself, and moving forward stronger for it.
I guess what i am trying to say is that everyone has faith, the only difference being what they place it in.
No, the situation is exactly the opposite of that. People who (carry) large sums of money get detained for it. Us poor people are left alone.
There inst enough gold currently discovered to make such a statue. All the gold in the world = 20-25 meter sized cube.
Please explain how someone would "prove" anything that happened 2000 years ago without relying on the books that were written at the time. OR please find books that were written at the time that denied the resurrection. I am not trying to be snotty here, but when you look at history, the bible is a compilation of the best preserved writings from that time, and is generally accepted from a HISTORICAL pov as accurate.
"But "meaning" is a totally human created concept." As someone who does not believe in God, i would ask you what exactly isn't a human created concept.
You think that real businesses use a free city wifi to process their credit cards? I would like to see (and make sure not to shop at) that business.
That is kinda like saying i have the right to buy a gas car, or a diesel car. And i also have the right to buy Gasoline or Diesel. So why cant i put diesel in my gas car? Some things don't work. The government shouldn't state that all cars must be able to use gas OR diesel.
The local governments represent ALL of the people in their area, not just the ones that use comcast. The great numbers of other non-comcast using members of that area are hurt by that idea. The government leasing the right-of way generates less tax burden for everyone they represent. They should lease to everyone that wants to bury cables (and they do). Why should the (local) government be the watchdog and be willing to lose money (and be forced to raise taxes) because a few people think that their service is bad? I dare say that your second point is moot to the point of ridiculousness. Comcast dosen't have infrastructure passing through 99% of its customers land. Most all of it will either be on public land (yay lower taxes), or a very small part through private land. Are you going to really say that those people should cut comcast off (when most of the leases will be for 20+ years), resulting in a loss of income for them, and worse service? The people in the best position to decide what happens to comcast is their users. If enough people really dont like it, the company will fail. You are willing for someone else to take a risk to wake comcast better, but you are not willing to do anything yourself. If you hate it, quit. simple and easy. If you are willing to pay per month, it is worth it to you. end of story. The wonderful thing about a free market is that the second someone does it better, that business will uproot the poor one.
Yeah, place the obligation on others instead of the users of the service. Here is a capitalistic idea. . . . if YOU don't like the service, YOU stop using it, stop putting the onus of responsibility on someone else.
As was posted elsewhere. . . trespassing is trespassing even if land is not fenced or posted private. Sorry, it has not been legally established that an open router gives consent to use that person's internet.
Except if your listening to my car's radio through the window 1) degraded my listening 2)could get me in legal trouble (p2p, child porn . . . ) and 3)potentially could cost me more (bandwidth limited isp's)
Just because one option is "easier and more cost effective" than another doesn't mean that that one should be chosen. I find it. . .sad. . that my comment was rated as trolling. I am absolutely serious. Stealing is stealing. Stealing is illegal. You can give me a number of arguments about how a novice won't notice what network he connects to. Fine, that is what the "criminalize PURPOSELY surfing the Internet ... " is there for. My internet connection is my property. If someone steals it, they are infringing on my rights, that is what government is for. yes, there are consequences to not securing your connection, but i think that there shoudl also be consequences for knowingly stealing someone else's property as well. I guess not everyone has morals.
Wait, so basically what you are saying is that it shouldn't be illegal to steal something if it is stolen easily. Leaving your car unlocked doesn't make it legal for someone else to use it. Easier maybe, but not legal.
In the context of the OP, linux isn't a viable alternative. If the mother's 13 year old son had begged her to install linux, I guarantee she would have something real to complain about. The issue here isn't that vista is "bad", the article, or any other account of the story gives no hard reasons for her to not like vista other than "it was so difficult". Lets face facts here. This story made it to slashdot because the majority of the users here dislike Microsoft. The article was cross listed under "Firehose:Mom blasts Ballmer over kid's crappy Vista OS". Does this sound like un-opinionated reporting to you? Two of the five tags are "humor" and "haha". Is this story really about how bad Microsoft is? Or is the experience more about the humor of an inept mother who can't get her computer to "work" for her 13 year old girl who wanted widgets. The majority of users here get a kick out of reading about ballmer getting embarrassed, and take the opportunity to talk about how much vista "sucks". I am sorry, its not Miscrosoft's fault if companies refuse to write stable drivers. If this were a new mac os, it would be hard coded into the os to not run on certain hardware. You don't see people bitching about the new mac os that simply will not install on their computers. If this were Linux you would have to compile and hack the drivers yourself. That sounds a little over the head of a woman that can't install a major os. I find it funny that everyone here fails to realize that people use windows because they like it. People use Vista because they like it. Businesses aren't switching to vista not because they don't like vista, but because their xp machines are running fine. I like how people use people staying with xp and not upgrading to vista to talk about how much microsoft sucks. Sorry to tell you, microsoft made xp as well. Sorry to burst your mac bubble, but using a mac is paying alot more for something just because you don't want to think. Thinking about upgrading your video card to the latest? Sorry, you use a mac. Want to get tv capture card? go to the apple store and buy whatever they offer you. Windows is a capitalistic dream. You can pluck hardware from a hundred different vendors, and it works. If you are mad at Microsoft for having a monopoly, its time to consider how they got there, and why. Linux has been around for a while, and its free. If it were a replacement for the desktop os for the average user, it would have replaced it by now. Sorry. I run linux to host my webpage and mail server, but years away from vista's usability. You can disagree all you want, but it would seem that the majority of computer user's agree with me.
You compare Linux use to Mac use as if they were comparable. They aren't.