So many Linux sympathizers developing on the RAD level with Pascal... who woulda thunk?
I must admit, though, that some form of RAD would be excellent on Linux. I haven't used Pascal since high school (UCSD Pascal on the Apple IIe). I think some C/C++ would fit in better, but I wouldn't complain about Delphi.
'Course, you can't go wrong with Perl. PerlBuilder, by Borland. Yeah.
Well, at this point I shall let the dead horse alone, only to say that it has been an interesting and enlightening discussion; and you have indeed brought up many good points and shed new light on much reasoning that has been beyond my comprehension. I do retain my own ideas and views, and I also stand by many (though not all) of the claims I made, but I admit that it is good to see from somebody else's side of the fence.
I suppose after all arguments that have been made, the prominent one left standing, irrefutable, on both sides, is "I believe."
It is true that religion is anti-rational in the realm of tangible science. Your claim that evidence supporting the existence of religious beliefs (particularly of diety), is true insofar as the evidence is tangible. However, one may argue that the evidence supporting religion is itself intangible. For example, feelings of hope or faith may themselves be intangible evidences in support of religion. If these phenomenon, coupled with the religious discipline of the practitioner, result in a better life or a better community for those involved, then this could also be considered a tangible evidence of such belief.
I also accept your thesis that science does not deem religion unacceptable, but unsupportable. This wording was a failure on my part to distinguish tolerance and acceptance from support or proof.
I can also respect your belief that faith is delusional; though to me such claim is entirely subjective, as is the claim that such is a focus on ignorance rather than pleasure. I suggest rather that faith is a focus on the less tangible or explainable feelings as opposed to the more tangible feelings or evidences that are more easily discerned.
I also submit that such atheistic reaction to religion (demonstrated by words like "delusional" and "ignorace") is motivated more by the discontent towards those religious people who, admittedly, do fail to open their minds to possibilities outside of the traditions they have learned and who ultimately are unable to tolerate the beliefs of others.
As for your observation that you do not accept a God for lack of good motive, this (to me) is proof indeed of the hedonistic nature. Again, for the religious, the motive is faith or similar intangible. If the motive for acceptance of God on a tangible evidence is reguired, this indeed is inherently hedonistic. The resoning is thus:
1) A person may accept religion as a matter of tradition, pride, or belonging to the religious community. The atheist may rightly label such as ignorant in many instances, in my opinion.
2) A person may accept religion on the basis of faith; faith being the essence of true religion. Faith is possibly a more difficult feeling to experience than reason or pleasure. A person may feel faith and also be a very reasonable, even scientific, person. Faith is akin to desire, or hope for something bigger or nobler beyond the mean human existence. Delusion, however, is a person's incapacity to change their beliefs.
As for your claim that homosexuality is no more dangerous than being left handed or red-haired, this is simply an uninformed statement, or at least underclarified. Feelings of homosexuality are indeed harmless. Practice of homosexuality risks infection of sexualy transimitted disease; indeed considerably moreso than heterosexual intercourse practiced in contractual marriage.
Also, with the considerable minority status of homosexuality manifest in the world, any claim of valuing maximum breeding or that replacing these people with breeders are evil is silly. The impact on the population would be trivial.
Also, the claim that our world is overpopulated is unsubstantiated. Considering humans probably don't even ocupy nearly thirty percent of the world's land area, and also considering that current agricultural and biological technologies could support an estimated 80 billion, overpopulation is simply not a viable or reasonable argument from a scientific view. Rather, it would be appropriate to claim that the current state of the world's economy or various governments is unable or unwilling to take care of the population. This is a human shortcoming, brought on by selfishness or other motives.
And finally, your belief that those who "denounce private victimless behavior" merit death is no more reasonable than the belief held by some that those who are not of their religion should also meat the same fate.
After all, atheism is only form of religion lacking a god, unless reason or science or humanism or pleasure be the god of atheism. Atheism has her fanatics; her disciples who fail to understand or tolerate the religious. Those who spread hatred against Christianity or any other religion in the name of enlightenment or mental freedom.
This is a correct observation. It is true that the so called "liberals" in the U.S. government are those who seek to limit the freedoms we enjoy. When our constitution was originally written, the freedoms explained therein were very broad. For example the second amendment clearly states:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Pretty simple huh? Well now look at all of the conditions tacked onto that:
-Joe can have a gun only IF he waits some specified time for a background check.
-Joe can have a gun only IF he has no criminal history.
-Joe can't buy a gun from so and so...
-Joe's gun must registered.
-Joe has to have a permit to use his gun.
-Joe can't carry his gun in public, or conceal it without special permission.
And on and on. I'm not saying this stuff is bad, I'm just saying it's a politically "liberal" tendency to carve up these "inalienable" rights in an attempt to address percieved social ills.
Politcal conservatives, on the other hand, view this kind of thing as intollerable. They see it as giving up freedom, and being happy about it.
"Libertarianism" is also a political philosophy. With relation to the US Constitutions, Libertarians are very conservative. The essence of Libertarianism is the right of the individual to seek out his own ends without coercion from others.
I would suggest that if a poll were conducted among those who would be widely considered as "geeks," we would find most have politically conservative attitudes.
On a more values based level, we find that the political "right-wing" attracts those belonging to the philishophical paradigm known as hedonism.
My opinion is that the majority of so called "geeks" fall into this hedonistic category.
Hedonism dates back to around the 3rd century BC. The philosopher Aristippus (being a disciple of Socrates), founded the Cyreanic school of hedonism. The principle of this philosophy is that among human values, the principal is pleasure, and the least is pain. Hedonism is the belief that men should dedicate their lives to the pursuit and enjoyment of pleasure.
Closely related to this philosophy is the idea of "humanism" widely propagated by the so-called "free-thinkers;" considered by many a fanatical atheistic sect.
To a hedonist, religious manifestation is anathema. If one holds a belief in a God, one must also commit to the discipline of such God. If the discipline teaches values that inhibit the enjoyment of pleasure, the hedonist will not accept this.
Modern hedonists do not understand that their rejection of religion is on the grounds of pleasure. Instead, they tend to point at such things as science to denounce the rationality of religion. However, science is no less philosophical than religion. Whereas science deals with the tangible, religion deals with the intangible. This in itself provides strong evidence for such claim that modern hedonistic denial of God is based in the tangible feelings of pleasure.
On the other hand, the religious' focus is on the intangible feelings such as faith and happiness (note that pleasure and happiness are two separate things; those who claim happiness as the highest human value are known as eudaimonists, and tend to be more of the religious sort). Such people often find in their religion the needed source of these feelings, however it is evidentally more difficult to obtain happiness or faith than it is to obtain pleasure. Thus the (modern) hedonist, having never felt faith in his being, will explain that such is not rational.
To illustrate the paradoxical claim of the hedonist using science to explain his denial of religion, one need look no further than the issue of homosexuality.
The hedonist will strongly advocate the idea of evolutionary biology, natural selection and the like. Which, in philosophical science, is theoretically true. This is often used with it's many tangible evidences to denounce the possibility of creationism, which I would suggest belongs to philisophical religion. God himself has a difficult time existing in the world of philosophical science.
On the other hand, the hedonist will decry those who denounce homosexuality - particularly on a religious or moral basis. In reality, homosexuality is irrational. Scientifically, it has been suggested that such behavior is genetic (though hotly debated still). Whether or not this is true, it is certainly an abnormality in every sense; an abnormality being a deviation from what a given sample has shown to be the mean. Also, it could be considered counterproductive from the evolutionary viewpoint. If the male and female were genetically designed to be compatible, with the inherent attraction being also genetically programmed, then it is less likely for the homosexual to propagate his or her genes; thus the homosexual tendency would gradually disappear from the population. And, if science has labored to repair other genetic abnormalities to improve the gene pool, there is no reason that the same should not also be done for genetic homosexuality. Yes, science may excuse this behaviour on the count of genetic abnormalcy, but if it desires to improve and propagate the species, it also must find a way to inhibit this gene.
Hence the modern hedonistic contradiction. Science says religion is unacceptable based upon reason; yet homosexuality is perfectly normal behavior or at least acceptable. The reality is that religion may deny pleasure, yet homosexuality may admit pleasure (based upon sexual preference, of course).
Finally - to get to the point - it is my opinion that the stereotype of the atheistic libertarian "geek" may be correct, but I suggest that the label of hedonist "geek" might be more accurate. My perception may be entirely incorrect, however I must say that my opinion was formed from the many anti-religion/pro-homosexual posts that I have read on Slashdot.
I'm way late on this one, but I must say... a very excellent post. If I were moderating, you'd have a '5.'
This is evidence of an open mind, if ever there was any. The so called "free thinkers" and the like should take note...
It's so easy for us to take sides, and few of us realize the importance of the other side in our culture; at least in reference to science and religion.
One unignorable thing, though, is that this provides us with entertainment. Something to read. Something to chuckle about.
Who cares if the world forgets about it? I, for one, view Microsoft as a sort of permanent circus, and find it even more hilarious that respectable people actually take them seriously.
It is good there are companies like Microsoft out there to alleviate our boredom.
Re:Dismissing an author for his politics
on
Ender's Shadow
·
· Score: 2
If you think that OSC is homophobic, then you ought to read his book, Treason. Or the Homecoming series. In reality, Card's SF works are very thought provoking and liberal considering that he is also quite a religious man.
Also, both Card and C.S. Lewis are far from fundamentalist in their faith, unless you have some other definition of "fundamentalist." Lewis himself was atheist until 1929, but later became a Christian apologist. Unlike fundamentalists, Lewis completely avoided sectarian disputes in favor of core doctrines.
As for Card's religion, Fundamentalist Christians openly ridicule, and ultimately reject it. Not to say that there is no element of "fundamental" Christian beliefs in these men, but it is one thing to disagree with, say, the practice of homosexuality; and another thing to be a homophobe.
That is a silly thing to say - the dominant Church at the time of most of those attrocities you mentioned already had a ban on the Bible, and most other literature. They called it the Dark Ages, and many religious people who tried to spread literacy were executed.
Priestly whoredoms, and witch-hunts, were mostly the result of dogmas; you'd be hard pressed to find any biblical basis for such dogmas today (celibacy, for example). I'd suggest the Crusades were as politically motivated as anything else, or the result of a certain ruler's desire for personal glory.
Ultimately, the Enlightenmet came about as a result of religious reformation. But the issue, after all, isn't religion. It's power. Whoever controls what people see, or don't see, also controls their perception of the world around them. A person's perception shapes their opinions and their actions. This reflects upon the culture as a whole, including religion or the lack thereof. Perceptions are closely related to beliefs.
Pornography doesn't make people. Religion doesn't make people. The Bible doesn't make people. Atheism doesn't make people. However, these things all exist because somebody made them.
So the issue of filtering content comes down to power. There are people who believe what you experience through your senses affects the way you think and influences the way you behave - and they are correct. And so if they can filter what the population has access to, they can control what happens in the culture. This is power.
However, when a man's (or woman's) intellectual or physical agency is repressed in this manner, revolution ensues. It's just a matter of time.
A current theory is that certain types of neutrinos do posses a fraction of mass, which is used to explain this discrepancy. There are a few neutrino observatories buried deep in mine shafts that have apparently confirmed that these neutrinos do indeed have slight mass. This would explain the missing mass in the universe.
I'm a Linux fan, but I use Windows, too. I don't think that there is anything fundamentally wrong with Windows as an operating system. I think that most OSes like Be and Linux have an intrinsic advantage in that they do not build on a hoarde of old code and complexity. This makes them world class Operating Systems.
Microsoft does have an advantage in consumer product availability and overall convenience and ease of use for the average computer user. Ten years ago, your average computer user was far more technical than the computer users of today. A "geek" can't be as happy with Microsoft's OS because he or she doesn't have as much freedom anymore to tweek and program. Windows is targeted to the computer illiterate, and this offends a lot of technically oriented people.
My problem with Microsoft is their marketing. I am comfortable that they have a good product, but I don't like the way they have to own everything. This is the fundamental difference between Windows and Linux; Linux is free, Windows is not. Both are fine operating systems.
Slashdot Mirror
So many Linux sympathizers developing on the RAD level with Pascal... who woulda thunk?
I must admit, though, that some form of RAD would be excellent on Linux. I haven't used Pascal since high school (UCSD Pascal on the Apple IIe). I think some C/C++ would fit in better, but I wouldn't complain about Delphi.
'Course, you can't go wrong with Perl. PerlBuilder, by Borland. Yeah.
From my experience, MacOS is even less stable than Windows, less configurable, and generally less useful.
If the proposition that OS stability is a factor in worker productivity is true, then MacOS has gotta be right up there with Windows.
I personally find CLI makes me more productive on the whole.
Luckily, Linux runs on the Mac now...
Well, at this point I shall let the dead horse alone, only to say that it has been an interesting and enlightening discussion; and you have indeed brought up many good points and shed new light on much reasoning that has been beyond my comprehension. I do retain my own ideas and views, and I also stand by many (though not all) of the claims I made, but I admit that it is good to see from somebody else's side of the fence.
I suppose after all arguments that have been made, the prominent one left standing, irrefutable, on both sides, is "I believe."
It is true that religion is anti-rational in the realm of tangible science. Your claim that evidence supporting the existence of religious beliefs (particularly of diety), is true insofar as the evidence is tangible. However, one may argue that the evidence supporting religion is itself intangible. For example, feelings of hope or faith may themselves be intangible evidences in support of religion. If these phenomenon, coupled with the religious discipline of the practitioner, result in a better life or a better community for those involved, then this could also be considered a tangible evidence of such belief.
I also accept your thesis that science does not deem religion unacceptable, but unsupportable. This wording was a failure on my part to distinguish tolerance and acceptance from support or proof.
I can also respect your belief that faith is delusional; though to me such claim is entirely subjective, as is the claim that such is a focus on ignorance rather than pleasure. I suggest rather that faith is a focus on the less tangible or explainable feelings as opposed to the more tangible feelings or evidences that are more easily discerned.
I also submit that such atheistic reaction to religion (demonstrated by words like "delusional" and "ignorace") is motivated more by the discontent towards those religious people who, admittedly, do fail to open their minds to possibilities outside of the traditions they have learned and who ultimately are unable to tolerate the beliefs of others.
As for your observation that you do not accept a God for lack of good motive, this (to me) is proof indeed of the hedonistic nature. Again, for the religious, the motive is faith or similar intangible. If the motive for acceptance of God on a tangible evidence is reguired, this indeed is inherently hedonistic. The resoning is thus:
1) A person may accept religion as a matter of tradition, pride, or belonging to the religious community. The atheist may rightly label such as ignorant in many instances, in my opinion.
2) A person may accept religion on the basis of faith; faith being the essence of true religion. Faith is possibly a more difficult feeling to experience than reason or pleasure. A person may feel faith and also be a very reasonable, even scientific, person. Faith is akin to desire, or hope for something bigger or nobler beyond the mean human existence. Delusion, however, is a person's incapacity to change their beliefs.
As for your claim that homosexuality is no more dangerous than being left handed or red-haired, this is simply an uninformed statement, or at least underclarified. Feelings of homosexuality are indeed harmless. Practice of homosexuality risks infection of sexualy transimitted disease; indeed considerably moreso than heterosexual intercourse practiced in contractual marriage.
Also, with the considerable minority status of homosexuality manifest in the world, any claim of valuing maximum breeding or that replacing these people with breeders are evil is silly. The impact on the population would be trivial.
Also, the claim that our world is overpopulated is unsubstantiated. Considering humans probably don't even ocupy nearly thirty percent of the world's land area, and also considering that current agricultural and biological technologies could support an estimated 80 billion, overpopulation is simply not a viable or reasonable argument from a scientific view. Rather, it would be appropriate to claim that the current state of the world's economy or various governments is unable or unwilling to take care of the population. This is a human shortcoming, brought on by selfishness or other motives.
And finally, your belief that those who "denounce private victimless behavior" merit death is no more reasonable than the belief held by some that those who are not of their religion should also meat the same fate.
After all, atheism is only form of religion lacking a god, unless reason or science or humanism or pleasure be the god of atheism. Atheism has her fanatics; her disciples who fail to understand or tolerate the religious. Those who spread hatred against Christianity or any other religion in the name of enlightenment or mental freedom.
This is a correct observation. It is true that the so called "liberals" in the U.S. government are those who seek to limit the freedoms we enjoy. When our constitution was originally written, the freedoms explained therein were very broad. For example the second amendment clearly states:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Pretty simple huh? Well now look at all of the conditions tacked onto that:
-Joe can have a gun only IF he waits some specified time for a background check.
-Joe can have a gun only IF he has no criminal history.
-Joe can't buy a gun from so and so...
-Joe's gun must registered.
-Joe has to have a permit to use his gun.
-Joe can't carry his gun in public, or conceal it without special permission.
And on and on. I'm not saying this stuff is bad, I'm just saying it's a politically "liberal" tendency to carve up these "inalienable" rights in an attempt to address percieved social ills.
Politcal conservatives, on the other hand, view this kind of thing as intollerable. They see it as giving up freedom, and being happy about it.
"Libertarianism" is also a political philosophy. With relation to the US Constitutions, Libertarians are very conservative. The essence of Libertarianism is the right of the individual to seek out his own ends without coercion from others.
I would suggest that if a poll were conducted among those who would be widely considered as "geeks," we would find most have politically conservative attitudes.
On a more values based level, we find that the political "right-wing" attracts those belonging to the philishophical paradigm known as hedonism.
My opinion is that the majority of so called "geeks" fall into this hedonistic category.
Hedonism dates back to around the 3rd century BC. The philosopher Aristippus (being a disciple of Socrates), founded the Cyreanic school of hedonism. The principle of this philosophy is that among human values, the principal is pleasure, and the least is pain. Hedonism is the belief that men should dedicate their lives to the pursuit and enjoyment of pleasure.
Closely related to this philosophy is the idea of "humanism" widely propagated by the so-called "free-thinkers;" considered by many a fanatical atheistic sect.
To a hedonist, religious manifestation is anathema. If one holds a belief in a God, one must also commit to the discipline of such God. If the discipline teaches values that inhibit the enjoyment of pleasure, the hedonist will not accept this.
Modern hedonists do not understand that their rejection of religion is on the grounds of pleasure. Instead, they tend to point at such things as science to denounce the rationality of religion. However, science is no less philosophical than religion. Whereas science deals with the tangible, religion deals with the intangible. This in itself provides strong evidence for such claim that modern hedonistic denial of God is based in the tangible feelings of pleasure.
On the other hand, the religious' focus is on the intangible feelings such as faith and happiness (note that pleasure and happiness are two separate things; those who claim happiness as the highest human value are known as eudaimonists, and tend to be more of the religious sort). Such people often find in their religion the needed source of these feelings, however it is evidentally more difficult to obtain happiness or faith than it is to obtain pleasure. Thus the (modern) hedonist, having never felt faith in his being, will explain that such is not rational.
To illustrate the paradoxical claim of the hedonist using science to explain his denial of religion, one need look no further than the issue of homosexuality.
The hedonist will strongly advocate the idea of evolutionary biology, natural selection and the like. Which, in philosophical science, is theoretically true. This is often used with it's many tangible evidences to denounce the possibility of creationism, which I would suggest belongs to philisophical religion. God himself has a difficult time existing in the world of philosophical science.
On the other hand, the hedonist will decry those who denounce homosexuality - particularly on a religious or moral basis. In reality, homosexuality is irrational. Scientifically, it has been suggested that such behavior is genetic (though hotly debated still). Whether or not this is true, it is certainly an abnormality in every sense; an abnormality being a deviation from what a given sample has shown to be the mean. Also, it could be considered counterproductive from the evolutionary viewpoint. If the male and female were genetically designed to be compatible, with the inherent attraction being also genetically programmed, then it is less likely for the homosexual to propagate his or her genes; thus the homosexual tendency would gradually disappear from the population. And, if science has labored to repair other genetic abnormalities to improve the gene pool, there is no reason that the same should not also be done for genetic homosexuality. Yes, science may excuse this behaviour on the count of genetic abnormalcy, but if it desires to improve and propagate the species, it also must find a way to inhibit this gene.
Hence the modern hedonistic contradiction. Science says religion is unacceptable based upon reason; yet homosexuality is perfectly normal behavior or at least acceptable. The reality is that religion may deny pleasure, yet homosexuality may admit pleasure (based upon sexual preference, of course).
Finally - to get to the point - it is my opinion that the stereotype of the atheistic libertarian "geek" may be correct, but I suggest that the label of hedonist "geek" might be more accurate. My perception may be entirely incorrect, however I must say that my opinion was formed from the many anti-religion/pro-homosexual posts that I have read on Slashdot.
I'm way late on this one, but I must say... a very excellent post. If I were moderating, you'd have a '5.'
This is evidence of an open mind, if ever there was any. The so called "free thinkers" and the like should take note...
It's so easy for us to take sides, and few of us realize the importance of the other side in our culture; at least in reference to science and religion.
You couldn't tell a cult from a hole in the ground.
One unignorable thing, though, is that this provides us with entertainment. Something to read. Something to chuckle about.
Who cares if the world forgets about it? I, for one, view Microsoft as a sort of permanent circus, and find it even more hilarious that respectable people actually take them seriously.
It is good there are companies like Microsoft out there to alleviate our boredom.
If you think that OSC is homophobic, then you ought to read his book, Treason. Or the Homecoming series. In reality, Card's SF works are very thought provoking and liberal considering that he is also quite a religious man.
Also, both Card and C.S. Lewis are far from fundamentalist in their faith, unless you have some other definition of "fundamentalist." Lewis himself was atheist until 1929, but later became a Christian apologist. Unlike fundamentalists, Lewis completely avoided sectarian disputes in favor of core doctrines.
As for Card's religion, Fundamentalist Christians openly ridicule, and ultimately reject it. Not to say that there is no element of "fundamental" Christian beliefs in these men, but it is one thing to disagree with, say, the practice of homosexuality; and another thing to be a homophobe.
That is a silly thing to say - the dominant Church at the time of most of those attrocities you mentioned already had a ban on the Bible, and most other literature. They called it the Dark Ages, and many religious people who tried to spread literacy were executed.
Priestly whoredoms, and witch-hunts, were mostly the result of dogmas; you'd be hard pressed to find any biblical basis for such dogmas today (celibacy, for example). I'd suggest the Crusades were as politically motivated as anything else, or the result of a certain ruler's desire for personal glory.
Ultimately, the Enlightenmet came about as a result of religious reformation. But the issue, after all, isn't religion. It's power. Whoever controls what people see, or don't see, also controls their perception of the world around them. A person's perception shapes their opinions and their actions. This reflects upon the culture as a whole, including religion or the lack thereof. Perceptions are closely related to beliefs.
Pornography doesn't make people. Religion doesn't make people. The Bible doesn't make people. Atheism doesn't make people. However, these things all exist because somebody made them.
So the issue of filtering content comes down to power. There are people who believe what you experience through your senses affects the way you think and influences the way you behave - and they are correct. And so if they can filter what the population has access to, they can control what happens in the culture. This is power.
However, when a man's (or woman's) intellectual or physical agency is repressed in this manner, revolution ensues. It's just a matter of time.
A current theory is that certain types of neutrinos do posses a fraction of mass, which is used to explain this discrepancy. There are a few neutrino observatories buried deep in mine shafts that have apparently confirmed that these neutrinos do indeed have slight mass. This would explain the missing mass in the universe.
Wow, how much would that set you back?
I'm a Linux fan, but I use Windows, too. I don't think that there is anything fundamentally wrong with Windows as an operating system. I think that most OSes like Be and Linux have an intrinsic advantage in that they do not build on a hoarde of old code and complexity. This makes them world class Operating Systems.
Microsoft does have an advantage in consumer product availability and overall convenience and ease of use for the average computer user. Ten years ago, your average computer user was far more technical than the computer users of today. A "geek" can't be as happy with Microsoft's OS because he or she doesn't have as much freedom anymore to tweek and program. Windows is targeted to the computer illiterate, and this offends a lot of technically oriented people.
My problem with Microsoft is their marketing. I am comfortable that they have a good product, but I don't like the way they have to own everything. This is the fundamental difference between Windows and Linux; Linux is free, Windows is not. Both are fine operating systems.
I fixed one once. I still have two TI 99/4As at home.