I'm not holding out much hope for patch-free gaming on X Box. I just watched a real video interview with Bill G. over at CNN, and he said several times in the interview that the primary reason for the internet connection aside from multiplayer and music downloads (mp3 capability? or maybe just windoze media?) was for "updates." I'm not sure if he means added content, like getting new cars for Need For Speed, or if he means patching games. Not that he'd admit to that if it was the case. That said, I can't believe the are putting this out without a modem. I just really don't see the bandiwdth available for widespread hish-speed net access with in the next 18 months. Not to mention my incredulity at the fact that they talk of a fall 2001 release. Hell, a lot can happen in that much time, I'd hate to be the guy laying out tens of millions of dollars on a program that far out, and with two more established competitors coming to market before or at the same time as my product. Just doesn't make any sense. I really hope it does work out for them, it would be nice to see PC-quality games move to the living room.
Apple doesn't need more trademark visibility. It's right up there with McDonalds and Coke.
Only because they stole the name from some FRUIT. Thats like saying my company has name recognition because its called "Sky" or "Dirt." -sorry, but that whole thing just cracks me up.
Coming soon to a theater near you:
STAR WARS: Episode II - The Mac Zealot Strikes Back. (c) 2000 Lucasfilm Ltd.
I'm not saying you're taking your faith lightly, I'm saying that if you ask me to believe in God because the consequences are bad if I'm wrong, then that's asking me to take faith lightly.
Quite right, it would be foolish to ask that. I'm simply being pragmatic when I say that people who don't share may faith will be punished. While that in and of itself is not a very good reason for belief, it is a fact, if one is to believe what the Bible says regarding the afterlife. To me, the possible reward is the greater motivation to believe, not the possible punishment for failure. I'm sure God isn't that stupid. Even any psych student will tell you that positive reinforcement is a more powerful motivator than negative reinforcement. I think I understand your position that you can't just decide to believe in God, but that it would take something Earth shaking that would cause you to just believe, rather than a decision reached by consideration. I too realize that one must approach faith in this manner. However, my intent was to make my point using philosophical points rather than emotional rants. All too many people think that rational thought and logic has no place in the realm of faith. As you can see from my posts, I think this is entirely wrong. Logic and thought shouldn't dictate faith, but should a good part of the foundation that anyone places their belief system on.
I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. I don't take my faith lightly. I often hear comments from people saying that believeing in God is stupid or only for those people with weak minds simply because there is no evidence proving his existence. I also hear comments along the lines of "why should I give up all the fun I have, just so I can believe in a god that may not even exist at all?" To me, these "reasons" to be agnostic or atheist are absurd. A LOT of people really are misinformed about what exactly it means to be a Christian. These people are also incorrect in assuming that the only logical thing to believe is in no god at all. To me, the entire concept of faith is a gamble, because you really have to put all your "eggs" in one basket. I'm simply trying to show that to make a "gamble" like this doesn't mean a person is an illogical, uneducated moron, which is an attitude I see a lot of in modern society. Logic and rationality can play a big part in belief, and it doesn't always have to be an emotion driven thing. I'm not saying my belief in God is cold and calculated, but it isn't done without a lot of thought either. That is why I attempt to explain myself in a way that a thinking outsider can understand, and perhaps appreciate the logic behind my beliefs. Hence, I boil the choice down like this: If Christians=correct then Christians will be rewarded for being Christians and nonbelievers will recieve no reward, and most likely punishment. If Christians=incorrect, then they recieve no reward, and neither does anyone else, unless another faith was correct. But to even care whether another faith could be correct or not defeats the purpose of believing in any faith, because in my mind there can be only belief or the absence of belief. What faith someone believes in is inconsequential to me. I already know that I'll be right or wrong, and that's ultimately all that matters. And I'm "betting" that I'm right. So you see, I'm simply pointing out that belief can be logical, rather than let people claim that a logical person cannot be a believer in God. Any person who claims that to believe in God is to throw logic out the window is quite mistaken, and that is all I'm attempting to get across.
Well, depending on who you ask, yes:-) That was the point I was trying to make. We shouldn't compare pure Linux with Windows, thats apples and oranges. Now comparing RedHat to Windows would be fine, and that's the point I was trying to get across.
"This is essentially Pascal's Wager, and it works when the only answers are Christianity and the formless void."
Let me add something to this that I left of of my previous post. We are only talking about two options. In electrical terms, lets say that what my faith says will happen when I die is a transistor. The transistor con only have two states: on or off. When I die, my faith will be right, or it will be wrong. If my faith is the "correct" faith, then it will be that way for everyone. If it isn't, again, it will be that way for everyone. If the first state is true, then I will be rewarded for my faith. And if the second state is true, then it will be true for every person, and I'll be no better or worse off than anyone else. Unless someone else is rewarded for their faith. In that case, good for them. I prefer not to have an easter egg hunt for my beliefs, trying to find the "most true truth," rather I believe what I do because logically, in my mind there is no other option except for no belief at all, and I'll take my chances.
Well, simply put, I have no doubt of the possibility of biblical innaccuracy, and as such I base my life on the ideals and message of the Bible, rather than on literal interpretation. This goes against what many "religious" versions of Christianity state, but by the same token allows people who can read and think for themselves to make of the Bible what they will. I believe God wants us to understand the massage, not the words, and many Bible based religions have sorely missed the point. I explain this in more detail under the "Christianity...Occam's Razor" thread.
"This is essentially Pascal's Wager, and it works when the only answers are Christianity and the formless void. Some Muslim visions of paradise are quite vengeful and feature graphic violence perpetrated against the rest of us, while the Buddhists see us as sort of stuck like broken records."
And you explain precisely why I don't place my faith in Islam or Buddhism. If their "religion" turns out to be the "correct" religion, then so be it. I cannot believe in a god that promotes fanaticism and zealotry as in Islam. Nor can I believe in a god as impersonal and indifferent as Buddha. The God I believe is a God that promotes forgiveness and devotion. To believe in any other god to me would be to place myself in a form of hell while living on this earth. The reason I believe what I do is because I want to avoid hell, whether in this life (by believing in the aforementioned Buddha or Allah), and the next (by not accepting Christ and thereby being condemned to the "classical" hell.)
"Aren't you obliged to give up certain attitudes like pride, and try as hard as you possibly can to convert everyone you meet, or risk endless torture?"
If I were to believe that the Pope's (or any other "spiritual leader's") interpretation of the Bible is "correct" then, yes. If were to place my faith in my "religion" rather than God, again, yes. However, I believe that each man or woman is to make of the Bible what they will, and to live their life according to what they find there. The Bible is a book that is several thousand years old. While I believe that it is the "inspired" word of God, I also have no doubt that portions may have been added or omitted, or simply changed to fit the attitude of the person writing the latest copy of it. I also realize that the traslation of the original texts can at times be imperfect, and due to these facts, I treat the Bible not as a literal manual for Christian faith, but as a guidebook. The ideals and spirit of what was written are what I base my life on, not literal interpretation. While this goes against most "religious" versions of the Christian faith, I believe that the person who reads the Bible and is capable of thinking for themselves will find that the meaning of the Bible is clear, even if the literal wording isn't. I also haven't found anyplace in the Bible which states that I'm not allowed to be proud of myself or those I love. Nor have I found any passage that simply states that I'll go to hell if I don't act like a missionary and tell everyone in the world about God. I'm not comfortable with the idea that every Christian is responsible for converting everyone else to our faith. I feel there are some who feel a calling to do this, and that is fine for them. But it is my feeling the our responsibility is not to convert, but to inform. you see, I can tell you what I believe and why I believe it without hitting over the head with it and trying to make you believe what I believe. If you make a decision not to share my faith, I believe that is good enough for both myself and God. But people who don't know anything about Christ are the ones that we are supposed share information with. If you read the Bible, you'll find that the idea of "conversion" is a rarely mentioned, yet God commands us all to "share" the faith. I believe this simply means to tell people that we are Christians and why, but not to "convert" anyone. If you listen to what I tell you (or what any other Christian tells you) and you decide to reject our faith, then you've decided, and that is that. I believe we no longer have any sort of "duty" to tell you anything, unless you decide later that you want to know more.
No, if you read my post, I said that "Windows" as most people think of it isn't just a kernel and a shell and some command line tools. Linux, in a minimal but functional form can fit on a floppy. With Windows you can't just rip out the GUI and the web browser and all the small programs that make up Windows (notepad, etc.) People have this concept of Linux being less buggy than Windows, and that may be, but Windows just doesn't compare to Linux. It can be compared to a Linux distro, and like I said, you would probably find that a decent distro like Mandrake or something would have nearly as many bugs as Windows, if you take into account *every* program that comes on the CD. Believe me, I'm not trying to defend MS. I just think we should compare apples and apples. As far as the reboot problems you've experienced, that is just Windows. Its always been that way, and probably always will. Hence the reason that most internet servers are running *nix OS's. I'm using the Win2000 Pro final and its easily the most stable MS OS I've seen, but then that isn't saying much. But in a year or two after they patch the hell out of it, it will be a damned good OS.
"you're being rewarded for believing whatever you were told rather than reaching your own conclusions" Ah, but here is where your logic shows its flaw. True Christian beliefs are entirely based on your personal interpretation of the bible, and what your relationship with God is like. I don't choose to follow some weak "priest" or "minister" around and let him tell me how to live my life. For instance, I don't interpret the Bible as saying many things that "religions" claim it says. My Bible says nothing about whether or not I can have a drink, or smoke some weed. My Bible doesn't directly say that premarital sex and abortion are wrong. My Bible doesn't say anything about what words I can say, what clothes I can wear, what music I can listen to, how many people I have to tell about Jesus, how much I have to go to church, or how much I have to give to charity. Almost all of these "rules" were thought up by a bunch of flawed human beings who "decided" that this is what the Bible says. Most of the Bible is completely open to one's interpretation of it. And the Bible is a guidebook, not a rulebook. What truly matters is the beliefs, and the personal relationship with God, not what the fscking pope says is "moral." I guarantee that if you and I were ever to meet, you'd find out that I'm not all that much different from you. The trouble we're having here is that you base your idea of "Christian" on people who I have little in common with, and who have little in common with the Bible's actual teachings. I'm sorry if people using my "banner" have tried to make you feel like you aren't "good enough" for their little club. Thing is, my Bible says I'm good enough, despite the fact that I smoke and drink and have used drugs, and spent a few days in jail for raising hell before. And thats a pretty cool thing to me, and is in no way "subtle cruelty." The subtle cruelty is that the majority of people waving the Christian banner are exclusive, while Christ himself was one of the most inclusive figures from either a historical or a theological viewpoint. Maybe before you write off all "Jesus freaks" as Nazis and Fascists, try talking to a *true* Christian about their beliefs rather than a "Religioustian."
You make good points, and I'll concede that agnosticism or weak atheism aren't religions, but rather an absence of belief. It all fundamentally boils down to what one chooses to consider as "overwhelming" evidence, and what other evidence one chooses to discard from one's belief system. When I look around me at this wonder we call Earth, it doesn't make sense to me that it just "happened" this way, and that the wonderful ballet of order and chaos around us is all coincidental. I guess that more than anything guides what evidence I accept and what I discard. Of course, I don't dismiss evolution and the Big Bang offhand, simply because I choose to believe in God. To do so is foolish, and is akin to saying that I know the mind of God, and have shoved God into a box that fits my world view. If God is God, then I suppose he/she/it could do anything, even use evolution and the Big Bang to create the world as it is. But as long as I believe, my faith says I'll be getting a pretty handsome return on my investment. And if that isn't the case, then I'm not any worse off than anyone else. After all, if there isn't a God, then the same thing (whatever that is) will happen to us all when we die. And the only thing I trade for my beliefs are actions that I won't or can't do within my faith, but of which most are illegal anyway, or would seriously hurt my family. So I guess I don't look at it like most people. A lot of people have the idea that being Christian means you have to do this, and not do that, and its all rules and regulations. But it isn't really. All it is is professing a belief, and living my life in a way I believe is right, and occasionally taking crap from my peers for being "weak minded." A fair price to pay in my mind, if what I believe all turns out to be true. And if not, I'll be dead, so what'll I care?
I'm not really sure that would solve the prob though...at least in Linux you can look in a fairly smallish area to find a bug to fix due to its modular nature. With Windows containing every type of software under the sun that MS could afford to buy and roll into their OS, opening the can of worms to the public could create more problems than it solves. Of course 10 years from now (after everyone quits scratching their heads at the way the OS is slapped together) it would be the best damn OS anybody ever saw:-)
I'll second most of your post. What many people are miss in this discussion is that Win2000 is considered to be a complete Os with all the bells and whistles included. While Linux probably doesn't have anywhere near this number of bugs, the "OS" part of Linux is much smaller and modular than a Windows OS. I would bet that if you ran down the bug list of *all* the applications that make up a typical Linux distro, it probably wouldn't fare much better. The difference is that most people consider Windows to be made up of hundreds of programs and libraries, where Linux can be very small, or hugely bloated depending on who you ask and which distro you are talking about. All things being equal, as a desktop OS, I can say that Win2000 Pro is about the best that I've seen anywhere. Of course, if Linux ever gets the software, usability, and support end evened up to the level of its stability and flexibility, it could easily best Windows 2000 on the desktop. Can't say much for the server version yet, I haven't had the chance to muck around with it.
I'm sure you're right, I'm not really pulling my hair out over it. I just think that there is enough labeling and name calling in this country, and was hoping that the "enlightened" readers of/. would be above such things. But this is America, and if we've proved anything in the last hundred years, its that people couldn't give a rat's ass about their fellow human beings. Its a sad, but inevitable fact. I just wish it din't have to be that way, but "who am I to say?" (Which should be officially designated as the slogan for the 20th century.)
As far as I can ascertain, evolution and the big bang are still considered theories, and as such, one must have some sort fo faith to choose to believe that the afforementioned theories explain the origin of the universe and life. This is no more "scientific" than Christianity. Atheism is most certainly a religion. I find it odd that so many reject the idea of a god outright, but many of those same people (sci-fi/hacker/science types) have no problem believing in the existence of extraterrestrial life, even though it is no easier to prove that aliens exist than it is to prove God exists. I'm not saying that I reject the idea of aliens, just that at present time, many who claim that God is impossible have no trouble with the notion of beings whose only proof of existence is anecdotal evidence that has about as much weight as the anecdotal evidence for miracles, and Noah's Flood, and a whole host of things that the Bible claims to have happened. It seems like many in the scientific community are being a tad bit hypocritical. "ring...ring" Hello? Pot? This is Kettle - You're Black!
"ps. god could have stopped every horrible thing in the world ever" But why? God gave people this neat thing called free will, and as a result, most of the truly horrible things that happen are things we do to each other and ourselves. And yeah, there are other uncontrollable random horrible things that happen. But life is meant to be a test. Imagine for a minute you are God. You create all these people, then set them on a little rock someplace for 70 years or so. They go about their business, and for some life is good, for some its bad, but for everyone its a struggle. While on this planet, people will do things that are wrong. So you provide a symbolic sacrifice in the form of your son to show people that there is redemption from wrong choices. During this life people can choose one of three viewpoints regarding you. They can choose to love you and believe in you in spite of the things that happen during their short time on Earth. In return, you reward them with an eternal life in a place where words like time, death, pain, and ignorance have no meaning. On the other hand, because these people have free will, they can choose to hate you and blame you for all the miserable crap they deal with. In return, they can simply live forever with more of the same pain and suffering that happened on Earth. Ditto for those who just don't care, or purposefully skirt the issue. Personally, I happen to think that by choosing the first option, I have nothing to lose and everything to gain. Too many people focus on what they have to "give up" in order to Christian, rather than what they recieve. It doesn't help that many of the things that people believe being a Christian means are actually perversions of the truth by self serving organizations of people masquerading as "religions" and "churches." You can choose to believe or not believe, but keep something in mind; If Christians are wrong, then it really doesn't matter much, because the same thing will happen to all people when they die. If Christians turn out to be right, and you aren't one of them, then your gonna miss out on the biggest party that ever will happen, and it will make this past New Year's parties look like those people were all asleep. I know which event I'd want to plan for, do you?
Lol! You'd think with all the whiners finding their way in here and complaining about the filters that/. has come with some sort of new "magnetic" link that sucks your mouse pointer to the story link and forces your hand to go into spasms, causing you to click the link. Kinda funny the lengths some people will go to just to bitch about how mad they are. To those people I say; go drink a case of beer. At least that way if you get mad, you'll probably pick a real life fight and get your ass kicked. Pretty convenient that so many people can sit here and talk trash without anyone physically there and ready to defend themselves. I tell you, this place is getting way too middle school for my tastes anymore.
I don't think Katz really is trying to be the voice for all geeks. I think he is fascinated by geek culture, and I think he is trying to distill geek culture so perhaps the common man can "get it."/. isn't just a geek website anymore. It is a cultural phenomenon that has permeated virtually the entire internet. Hell, I've only installed Linux twice, never compiled a kernel, and still use Windows on a daily basis for 99% of my computing needs. But I am still interested in the open source movement, Linux, cutting edge tech, and hacker culture. People like Jon Katz help filter out the fanaticism and zealotry that one sees in these forums, and attemps to explain why all these things are as cool as the leet hackers in here say they are. Its for that audience that I think Katz was brought to slashdot. I find it troubling that so many people don't understand that, and fail to even *try* to be inclusive to those people who are still trying to find their way out of techno-mediocrity. Katz is part of that inclusiveness, and while the "community" may find him not "worthy," I hope those who actually run this site (not the "community" BTW, there are actual people who "own" the site) keep him on for a while to help shatter some of the geek mystique.
At least we have Katz, who has some semblence of technical knowledge. Could be worse: at least he isn't a technophobic moron like Walter Mossberg (sp?) who writes "tech" articles for the NY Times (or is it the Wall Street Journal?) Doesn't matter, his articles are still luddite dribble. "Boo, hoo...why can't computers fix themselves instead of making me get off my butt..." You get the idea.
As a Christian who tries not to shove anything down anyone's throat, I must say that I find those who try to steal liberty under the guise of my faith as appalling as you. The problem both you and Katz point out is that you can't legislate morality. But there may come a time when many people against legislating morality might wish that they had anyway, rather than let divisivness and anarchy destroy what so many people died to build in this country. I'd also like you to know that the term "xtian" is no less offensive to me than the term "nigger" is to most blacks, at least when whites say it. I don't believe in "x," I believe in Christ. You might not, and thats fine by me. However, using that term makes a mockery of things that I believe, when I have never attempted to do the same to you. Just thought you might like to know. On the other hand, if you use that term to mock people like me, then you probably don't care.
What exactly don't you like about the moral ethics tought by Christianity? Christian ethics are no more "bizzare" than the ethics of any other religion. The world might actually be a cool place if we didn't kill, steal, covet, and if we tried to show a little compassion and love for our fellow human beings. People with attitudes such as yours are the ones who are "bizzare" and "masochistic." Why don't you sit down and truly learn about Christianity before you speak, rather than spout off some typical response to widespread "Religioustianity" which is no more Christian than Adolph Hitler.
Also keep in mind that Jon tends to write using very short paragraphs. This makes readers have to scroll more often, and makes the article seem longer than it would otherwise.
If you want to try the censorship road, perhaps Slashdot should start requiring registered posting, with a real email address. Seems that ACs in here are the ones making the most noise. You don't see this much trolling and shit at Ars Technica (the only other truly cool forum).
Jon does tend to get a tad bit long-winded, but its probably due to the fact that he's a professional writer. Many of the "geeks" doing posts in places like Slashdot tend to speak their piece in a hyper-efficient way. After all, when you are used to interfacing with a machine, and are very comfortable doing that, you woulnd't have much need for flowery language. Katz is used to writing stuff for people to read instead of writing code, and its to be expected that he'll write in more expressive ways than much of what you see here. I think the problem here is that his writing style clashes so harshly with the more hardcore geek writers. This causes people here to comment, when in many mass media publications, nobody would notice or care. Just my $0.02
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not holding out much hope for patch-free gaming on X Box. I just watched a real video interview with Bill G. over at CNN, and he said several times in the interview that the primary reason for the internet connection aside from multiplayer and music downloads (mp3 capability? or maybe just windoze media?) was for "updates." I'm not sure if he means added content, like getting new cars for Need For Speed, or if he means patching games. Not that he'd admit to that if it was the case. That said, I can't believe the are putting this out without a modem. I just really don't see the bandiwdth available for widespread hish-speed net access with in the next 18 months. Not to mention my incredulity at the fact that they talk of a fall 2001 release. Hell, a lot can happen in that much time, I'd hate to be the guy laying out tens of millions of dollars on a program that far out, and with two more established competitors coming to market before or at the same time as my product. Just doesn't make any sense. I really hope it does work out for them, it would be nice to see PC-quality games move to the living room.
Apple doesn't need more trademark visibility. It's right up there with McDonalds and Coke.
Only because they stole the name from some FRUIT. Thats like saying my company has name recognition because its called "Sky" or "Dirt." -sorry, but that whole thing just cracks me up.
Coming soon to a theater near you:
STAR WARS: Episode II - The Mac Zealot Strikes Back. (c) 2000 Lucasfilm Ltd.
I'm not saying you're taking your faith lightly, I'm saying that if you ask me to believe in God because the consequences are bad if I'm wrong, then that's asking me to take faith lightly.
Quite right, it would be foolish to ask that. I'm simply being pragmatic when I say that people who don't share may faith will be punished. While that in and of itself is not a very good reason for belief, it is a fact, if one is to believe what the Bible says regarding the afterlife. To me, the possible reward is the greater motivation to believe, not the possible punishment for failure. I'm sure God isn't that stupid. Even any psych student will tell you that positive reinforcement is a more powerful motivator than negative reinforcement. I think I understand your position that you can't just decide to believe in God, but that it would take something Earth shaking that would cause you to just believe, rather than a decision reached by consideration. I too realize that one must approach faith in this manner. However, my intent was to make my point using philosophical points rather than emotional rants. All too many people think that rational thought and logic has no place in the realm of faith. As you can see from my posts, I think this is entirely wrong. Logic and thought shouldn't dictate faith, but should a good part of the foundation that anyone places their belief system on.
I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. I don't take my faith lightly. I often hear comments from people saying that believeing in God is stupid or only for those people with weak minds simply because there is no evidence proving his existence. I also hear comments along the lines of "why should I give up all the fun I have, just so I can believe in a god that may not even exist at all?" To me, these "reasons" to be agnostic or atheist are absurd. A LOT of people really are misinformed about what exactly it means to be a Christian. These people are also incorrect in assuming that the only logical thing to believe is in no god at all. To me, the entire concept of faith is a gamble, because you really have to put all your "eggs" in one basket. I'm simply trying to show that to make a "gamble" like this doesn't mean a person is an illogical, uneducated moron, which is an attitude I see a lot of in modern society. Logic and rationality can play a big part in belief, and it doesn't always have to be an emotion driven thing. I'm not saying my belief in God is cold and calculated, but it isn't done without a lot of thought either. That is why I attempt to explain myself in a way that a thinking outsider can understand, and perhaps appreciate the logic behind my beliefs. Hence, I boil the choice down like this: If Christians=correct then Christians will be rewarded for being Christians and nonbelievers will recieve no reward, and most likely punishment. If Christians=incorrect, then they recieve no reward, and neither does anyone else, unless another faith was correct. But to even care whether another faith could be correct or not defeats the purpose of believing in any faith, because in my mind there can be only belief or the absence of belief. What faith someone believes in is inconsequential to me. I already know that I'll be right or wrong, and that's ultimately all that matters. And I'm "betting" that I'm right. So you see, I'm simply pointing out that belief can be logical, rather than let people claim that a logical person cannot be a believer in God. Any person who claims that to believe in God is to throw logic out the window is quite mistaken, and that is all I'm attempting to get across.
Well, depending on who you ask, yes :-) That was the point I was trying to make. We shouldn't compare pure Linux with Windows, thats apples and oranges. Now comparing RedHat to Windows would be fine, and that's the point I was trying to get across.
"This is essentially Pascal's Wager, and it works when the only answers are Christianity and the formless void."
Let me add something to this that I left of of my previous post. We are only talking about two options. In electrical terms, lets say that what my faith says will happen when I die is a transistor. The transistor con only have two states: on or off. When I die, my faith will be right, or it will be wrong. If my faith is the "correct" faith, then it will be that way for everyone. If it isn't, again, it will be that way for everyone. If the first state is true, then I will be rewarded for my faith. And if the second state is true, then it will be true for every person, and I'll be no better or worse off than anyone else. Unless someone else is rewarded for their faith. In that case, good for them. I prefer not to have an easter egg hunt for my beliefs, trying to find the "most true truth," rather I believe what I do because logically, in my mind there is no other option except for no belief at all, and I'll take my chances.Well, simply put, I have no doubt of the possibility of biblical innaccuracy, and as such I base my life on the ideals and message of the Bible, rather than on literal interpretation. This goes against what many "religious" versions of Christianity state, but by the same token allows people who can read and think for themselves to make of the Bible what they will. I believe God wants us to understand the massage, not the words, and many Bible based religions have sorely missed the point. I explain this in more detail under the "Christianity...Occam's Razor" thread.
"This is essentially Pascal's Wager, and it works when the only answers are Christianity and the formless void. Some Muslim visions of paradise are quite vengeful and feature graphic violence perpetrated against the rest of us, while the Buddhists see us as sort of stuck like broken records."
And you explain precisely why I don't place my faith in Islam or Buddhism. If their "religion" turns out to be the "correct" religion, then so be it. I cannot believe in a god that promotes fanaticism and zealotry as in Islam. Nor can I believe in a god as impersonal and indifferent as Buddha. The God I believe is a God that promotes forgiveness and devotion. To believe in any other god to me would be to place myself in a form of hell while living on this earth. The reason I believe what I do is because I want to avoid hell, whether in this life (by believing in the aforementioned Buddha or Allah), and the next (by not accepting Christ and thereby being condemned to the "classical" hell.)
"Aren't you obliged to give up certain attitudes like pride, and try as hard as you possibly can to convert everyone you meet, or risk endless torture?"
If I were to believe that the Pope's (or any other "spiritual leader's") interpretation of the Bible is "correct" then, yes. If were to place my faith in my "religion" rather than God, again, yes. However, I believe that each man or woman is to make of the Bible what they will, and to live their life according to what they find there. The Bible is a book that is several thousand years old. While I believe that it is the "inspired" word of God, I also have no doubt that portions may have been added or omitted, or simply changed to fit the attitude of the person writing the latest copy of it. I also realize that the traslation of the original texts can at times be imperfect, and due to these facts, I treat the Bible not as a literal manual for Christian faith, but as a guidebook. The ideals and spirit of what was written are what I base my life on, not literal interpretation. While this goes against most "religious" versions of the Christian faith, I believe that the person who reads the Bible and is capable of thinking for themselves will find that the meaning of the Bible is clear, even if the literal wording isn't. I also haven't found anyplace in the Bible which states that I'm not allowed to be proud of myself or those I love. Nor have I found any passage that simply states that I'll go to hell if I don't act like a missionary and tell everyone in the world about God. I'm not comfortable with the idea that every Christian is responsible for converting everyone else to our faith. I feel there are some who feel a calling to do this, and that is fine for them. But it is my feeling the our responsibility is not to convert, but to inform. you see, I can tell you what I believe and why I believe it without hitting over the head with it and trying to make you believe what I believe. If you make a decision not to share my faith, I believe that is good enough for both myself and God. But people who don't know anything about Christ are the ones that we are supposed share information with. If you read the Bible, you'll find that the idea of "conversion" is a rarely mentioned, yet God commands us all to "share" the faith. I believe this simply means to tell people that we are Christians and why, but not to "convert" anyone. If you listen to what I tell you (or what any other Christian tells you) and you decide to reject our faith, then you've decided, and that is that. I believe we no longer have any sort of "duty" to tell you anything, unless you decide later that you want to know more.
No, if you read my post, I said that "Windows" as most people think of it isn't just a kernel and a shell and some command line tools. Linux, in a minimal but functional form can fit on a floppy. With Windows you can't just rip out the GUI and the web browser and all the small programs that make up Windows (notepad, etc.) People have this concept of Linux being less buggy than Windows, and that may be, but Windows just doesn't compare to Linux. It can be compared to a Linux distro, and like I said, you would probably find that a decent distro like Mandrake or something would have nearly as many bugs as Windows, if you take into account *every* program that comes on the CD. Believe me, I'm not trying to defend MS. I just think we should compare apples and apples. As far as the reboot problems you've experienced, that is just Windows. Its always been that way, and probably always will. Hence the reason that most internet servers are running *nix OS's. I'm using the Win2000 Pro final and its easily the most stable MS OS I've seen, but then that isn't saying much. But in a year or two after they patch the hell out of it, it will be a damned good OS.
"you're being rewarded for believing whatever you were told rather than reaching your own conclusions" Ah, but here is where your logic shows its flaw. True Christian beliefs are entirely based on your personal interpretation of the bible, and what your relationship with God is like. I don't choose to follow some weak "priest" or "minister" around and let him tell me how to live my life. For instance, I don't interpret the Bible as saying many things that "religions" claim it says. My Bible says nothing about whether or not I can have a drink, or smoke some weed. My Bible doesn't directly say that premarital sex and abortion are wrong. My Bible doesn't say anything about what words I can say, what clothes I can wear, what music I can listen to, how many people I have to tell about Jesus, how much I have to go to church, or how much I have to give to charity. Almost all of these "rules" were thought up by a bunch of flawed human beings who "decided" that this is what the Bible says. Most of the Bible is completely open to one's interpretation of it. And the Bible is a guidebook, not a rulebook. What truly matters is the beliefs, and the personal relationship with God, not what the fscking pope says is "moral." I guarantee that if you and I were ever to meet, you'd find out that I'm not all that much different from you. The trouble we're having here is that you base your idea of "Christian" on people who I have little in common with, and who have little in common with the Bible's actual teachings. I'm sorry if people using my "banner" have tried to make you feel like you aren't "good enough" for their little club. Thing is, my Bible says I'm good enough, despite the fact that I smoke and drink and have used drugs, and spent a few days in jail for raising hell before. And thats a pretty cool thing to me, and is in no way "subtle cruelty." The subtle cruelty is that the majority of people waving the Christian banner are exclusive, while Christ himself was one of the most inclusive figures from either a historical or a theological viewpoint. Maybe before you write off all "Jesus freaks" as Nazis and Fascists, try talking to a *true* Christian about their beliefs rather than a "Religioustian."
You make good points, and I'll concede that agnosticism or weak atheism aren't religions, but rather an absence of belief. It all fundamentally boils down to what one chooses to consider as "overwhelming" evidence, and what other evidence one chooses to discard from one's belief system. When I look around me at this wonder we call Earth, it doesn't make sense to me that it just "happened" this way, and that the wonderful ballet of order and chaos around us is all coincidental. I guess that more than anything guides what evidence I accept and what I discard. Of course, I don't dismiss evolution and the Big Bang offhand, simply because I choose to believe in God. To do so is foolish, and is akin to saying that I know the mind of God, and have shoved God into a box that fits my world view. If God is God, then I suppose he/she/it could do anything, even use evolution and the Big Bang to create the world as it is. But as long as I believe, my faith says I'll be getting a pretty handsome return on my investment. And if that isn't the case, then I'm not any worse off than anyone else. After all, if there isn't a God, then the same thing (whatever that is) will happen to us all when we die. And the only thing I trade for my beliefs are actions that I won't or can't do within my faith, but of which most are illegal anyway, or would seriously hurt my family. So I guess I don't look at it like most people. A lot of people have the idea that being Christian means you have to do this, and not do that, and its all rules and regulations. But it isn't really. All it is is professing a belief, and living my life in a way I believe is right, and occasionally taking crap from my peers for being "weak minded." A fair price to pay in my mind, if what I believe all turns out to be true. And if not, I'll be dead, so what'll I care?
Yes, but that OE shit tastes much worse coming back up than some Bud Light :-)
I'm not really sure that would solve the prob though...at least in Linux you can look in a fairly smallish area to find a bug to fix due to its modular nature. With Windows containing every type of software under the sun that MS could afford to buy and roll into their OS, opening the can of worms to the public could create more problems than it solves. Of course 10 years from now (after everyone quits scratching their heads at the way the OS is slapped together) it would be the best damn OS anybody ever saw :-)
I'll second most of your post. What many people are miss in this discussion is that Win2000 is considered to be a complete Os with all the bells and whistles included. While Linux probably doesn't have anywhere near this number of bugs, the "OS" part of Linux is much smaller and modular than a Windows OS. I would bet that if you ran down the bug list of *all* the applications that make up a typical Linux distro, it probably wouldn't fare much better. The difference is that most people consider Windows to be made up of hundreds of programs and libraries, where Linux can be very small, or hugely bloated depending on who you ask and which distro you are talking about. All things being equal, as a desktop OS, I can say that Win2000 Pro is about the best that I've seen anywhere. Of course, if Linux ever gets the software, usability, and support end evened up to the level of its stability and flexibility, it could easily best Windows 2000 on the desktop. Can't say much for the server version yet, I haven't had the chance to muck around with it.
I'm sure you're right, I'm not really pulling my hair out over it. I just think that there is enough labeling and name calling in this country, and was hoping that the "enlightened" readers of /. would be above such things. But this is America, and if we've proved anything in the last hundred years, its that people couldn't give a rat's ass about their fellow human beings. Its a sad, but inevitable fact. I just wish it din't have to be that way, but "who am I to say?" (Which should be officially designated as the slogan for the 20th century.)
As far as I can ascertain, evolution and the big bang are still considered theories, and as such, one must have some sort fo faith to choose to believe that the afforementioned theories explain the origin of the universe and life. This is no more "scientific" than Christianity. Atheism is most certainly a religion. I find it odd that so many reject the idea of a god outright, but many of those same people (sci-fi/hacker/science types) have no problem believing in the existence of extraterrestrial life, even though it is no easier to prove that aliens exist than it is to prove God exists. I'm not saying that I reject the idea of aliens, just that at present time, many who claim that God is impossible have no trouble with the notion of beings whose only proof of existence is anecdotal evidence that has about as much weight as the anecdotal evidence for miracles, and Noah's Flood, and a whole host of things that the Bible claims to have happened. It seems like many in the scientific community are being a tad bit hypocritical. "ring...ring" Hello? Pot? This is Kettle - You're Black!
"ps. god could have stopped every horrible thing in the world ever" But why? God gave people this neat thing called free will, and as a result, most of the truly horrible things that happen are things we do to each other and ourselves. And yeah, there are other uncontrollable random horrible things that happen. But life is meant to be a test. Imagine for a minute you are God. You create all these people, then set them on a little rock someplace for 70 years or so. They go about their business, and for some life is good, for some its bad, but for everyone its a struggle. While on this planet, people will do things that are wrong. So you provide a symbolic sacrifice in the form of your son to show people that there is redemption from wrong choices. During this life people can choose one of three viewpoints regarding you. They can choose to love you and believe in you in spite of the things that happen during their short time on Earth. In return, you reward them with an eternal life in a place where words like time, death, pain, and ignorance have no meaning. On the other hand, because these people have free will, they can choose to hate you and blame you for all the miserable crap they deal with. In return, they can simply live forever with more of the same pain and suffering that happened on Earth. Ditto for those who just don't care, or purposefully skirt the issue. Personally, I happen to think that by choosing the first option, I have nothing to lose and everything to gain. Too many people focus on what they have to "give up" in order to Christian, rather than what they recieve. It doesn't help that many of the things that people believe being a Christian means are actually perversions of the truth by self serving organizations of people masquerading as "religions" and "churches." You can choose to believe or not believe, but keep something in mind; If Christians are wrong, then it really doesn't matter much, because the same thing will happen to all people when they die. If Christians turn out to be right, and you aren't one of them, then your gonna miss out on the biggest party that ever will happen, and it will make this past New Year's parties look like those people were all asleep. I know which event I'd want to plan for, do you?
Lol! You'd think with all the whiners finding their way in here and complaining about the filters that /. has come with some sort of new "magnetic" link that sucks your mouse pointer to the story link and forces your hand to go into spasms, causing you to click the link. Kinda funny the lengths some people will go to just to bitch about how mad they are. To those people I say; go drink a case of beer. At least that way if you get mad, you'll probably pick a real life fight and get your ass kicked. Pretty convenient that so many people can sit here and talk trash without anyone physically there and ready to defend themselves. I tell you, this place is getting way too middle school for my tastes anymore.
I don't think Katz really is trying to be the voice for all geeks. I think he is fascinated by geek culture, and I think he is trying to distill geek culture so perhaps the common man can "get it." /. isn't just a geek website anymore. It is a cultural phenomenon that has permeated virtually the entire internet. Hell, I've only installed Linux twice, never compiled a kernel, and still use Windows on a daily basis for 99% of my computing needs. But I am still interested in the open source movement, Linux, cutting edge tech, and hacker culture. People like Jon Katz help filter out the fanaticism and zealotry that one sees in these forums, and attemps to explain why all these things are as cool as the leet hackers in here say they are. Its for that audience that I think Katz was brought to slashdot. I find it troubling that so many people don't understand that, and fail to even *try* to be inclusive to those people who are still trying to find their way out of techno-mediocrity. Katz is part of that inclusiveness, and while the "community" may find him not "worthy," I hope those who actually run this site (not the "community" BTW, there are actual people who "own" the site) keep him on for a while to help shatter some of the geek mystique.
At least we have Katz, who has some semblence of technical knowledge. Could be worse: at least he isn't a technophobic moron like Walter Mossberg (sp?) who writes "tech" articles for the NY Times (or is it the Wall Street Journal?) Doesn't matter, his articles are still luddite dribble. "Boo, hoo...why can't computers fix themselves instead of making me get off my butt..." You get the idea.
As a Christian who tries not to shove anything down anyone's throat, I must say that I find those who try to steal liberty under the guise of my faith as appalling as you. The problem both you and Katz point out is that you can't legislate morality. But there may come a time when many people against legislating morality might wish that they had anyway, rather than let divisivness and anarchy destroy what so many people died to build in this country. I'd also like you to know that the term "xtian" is no less offensive to me than the term "nigger" is to most blacks, at least when whites say it. I don't believe in "x," I believe in Christ. You might not, and thats fine by me. However, using that term makes a mockery of things that I believe, when I have never attempted to do the same to you. Just thought you might like to know. On the other hand, if you use that term to mock people like me, then you probably don't care.
What exactly don't you like about the moral ethics tought by Christianity? Christian ethics are no more "bizzare" than the ethics of any other religion. The world might actually be a cool place if we didn't kill, steal, covet, and if we tried to show a little compassion and love for our fellow human beings. People with attitudes such as yours are the ones who are "bizzare" and "masochistic." Why don't you sit down and truly learn about Christianity before you speak, rather than spout off some typical response to widespread "Religioustianity" which is no more Christian than Adolph Hitler.
Also keep in mind that Jon tends to write using very short paragraphs. This makes readers have to scroll more often, and makes the article seem longer than it would otherwise.
If you want to try the censorship road, perhaps Slashdot should start requiring registered posting, with a real email address. Seems that ACs in here are the ones making the most noise. You don't see this much trolling and shit at Ars Technica (the only other truly cool forum).
Jon does tend to get a tad bit long-winded, but its probably due to the fact that he's a professional writer. Many of the "geeks" doing posts in places like Slashdot tend to speak their piece in a hyper-efficient way. After all, when you are used to interfacing with a machine, and are very comfortable doing that, you woulnd't have much need for flowery language. Katz is used to writing stuff for people to read instead of writing code, and its to be expected that he'll write in more expressive ways than much of what you see here. I think the problem here is that his writing style clashes so harshly with the more hardcore geek writers. This causes people here to comment, when in many mass media publications, nobody would notice or care. Just my $0.02