You obviously don't understand Buddhism. There is no self to perfect.
Buddhism makles no outrageous claims that require suspension of critical thinking to accept. It says that anything anyone says should only be accepted if it makes sense. The story of Christ, with all it's miracles and divinity, requires suspension of logical thinking to believe. This is why Buddhism is a philosophy while Christianity is a religion.
Religion may not be a universal damager. Some people may be capable of taking in the good parts without being harmed by the bad parts. This does not excuse religion at all, or justify its continued existence. There are other alternatives that provide all of the good with none of the bad.
An "Anti-religious" virus makes about as much sense as an anti-flu" virus. An innoculation, maybe? That's exactly what I'm trying to do, innoculate people against a deadly parasite, so if by anti-religious virus, you mean an innoculation against religion, then you are correct.
Yes, they do have a place in a logical debate. Your emotional reaction to those words is what has no place in a logical debate. Those words are apt and descriptive of the problem. If you can see a way that I can say what I have to say without using those words, please let me know. It isn't the words that offend, it is the ideas behind them. You can debate the ideas all you like, but your hurt feelings are no valid reason not to state those ideas using whatever words will get the point across.
The illogic, make it stop! If something less complicated can create something more complicated, a less complicated universe could evolve into a more complicated universe, destroying the original argument for the existence of God.
I know religious people who are quite intelligent, tolerant, open-minded, and are taught to be charitable, hard-working, educated, and law-abiding.
I know very many religious people who are as you describe. In every single case, I am convinced those people would have been the same, if not better, people had religion not been a part of their life. They are just good people, plain and simple. Religion is a symptom of their desire to be good, not a cause.
The good that religion supposedly does would be done even if religion did not exist. It adds nothing good to the world that wasn't already there.
The mental virus that is known as religion is perfectly capable of infecting smart people. It makes them supider than they would have been otherwise, it doesn't turn them into morons.
Buddhism denies the importance of the existence of anything remotely classifiable as "the divine." It is a philosophy, not a religion. Individual salvation is utterly different from enlightenment. Salvation assumes there is something to be forgiven, and someone to be saved. Buddhism rejects both notions.
I was raised non-religious, by completely open minded parents who encouraged me to find my own path and learn about all religions. I have studied very many religions and spoken in depth with very many religious people. I have never been directly harmed by religion, which is perhaps why I can see the harm it causes others so clearly.
See? This is the kind of craziness I'm talking about. You have entered into an infinite regress. Where does this thing outside space and time come from? Either it arises from something else, or it is eternally present, or it is self created. If it arises from something else, nothing is answered, we just have added another layer to the question. If it is eternal or self created, why could the universe itself, which must be less complicated than any proposed creator, not also be eternal or self creating?
This is so ridiculous and illogical: you posit that something as complex as the universe needs a creator, you posit a creator that must be more complex than its creation, and then you say that creator itself is not created by somethign else. Please try to see how insane this sounds to those of us who have not been infected by your mental virus.
There is no responsibility that comes from being in a created universe. Just because somethin gcreated you does not put that thing in a superior position over you. It is in no position to dictate responsibility to you, to say that it is is another of those completely illogical things religion would have you believe.
There is no lack of responsibility that comes from being without a creator. All real responsibility is a form of enlightened self interest. I don't need a creator to tell me to be responsible. If being responsible makes sense, I am perfectly capable of figuring that out on my own. Turns out it does make sense, creator or no.
Whether or not there is a creator is a question that is completely seperate from the question of whether religion is a form of insanity. If there is a creator, it sure has done a piss-poor job of communicating its intentions in unambiguous ways to it's creations. Until said creator makes itself and its intentions known to me in a way that can't be faked by mentally damaged humans, the question of whether or not there is a creator is utterly meaningless.
The question of the impact of religious insanity on human well being, however, is an important one that can be answered.
Religion is different from race. Religion is consciously chose, race isn't. Religions, as a rule, mix common sense rules with some amount of logic-defying ridiculousness. The common sense rules hook people in, and then the illogic breaks their minds, rendering them incapable of making rational decisions on their own. They become cattle for the priestly class which profit from their mental enslavement. Religion teaches people that they are incapable of thinking for themselves, that they need a higher power, always speaking to them through a human intermediary, in order to know how to live correctly. Religion is a form of mass psychosis. It is no more a legitimate "belief system" than the ramblings of a paranoid schizophrenic.
Almost by definition, a person has to mentally damaged in order to accept religion. This is no slight against any person so damaged, any more than a person damaged by a viral infection is at fault. It is not your fault that your mind was infected by an insidious mental virus that has damaged your ability to think, in order to make you better at spreading the virus to others. But you should not be respected for having the virus, and your attempts to pass the virus on to others should be stopped.
A peacock's tail is also an unnecessary waste of resources, yet peahens seem to find it attractive. Sometimes, a waste of resources is a kind of brag that says, "See, potential mate, I am so fit that I can take on this handicap and still survive."
First off, I don't speak for slashdot. Second, I never claimed that everyone who doesn't like the GPLv3 is a whining leach. You know what? I don't particularly care for it myself. And I agree with you, this really only applies to developers. Not whining leaches, which was my point.
Nice strawman, though. Get back to me when you actually have a coherent argument, or even an incoherent one. This doesn't even rise to the level of incoherent argument. It's just a bunch of words and letters strungg together without meaning, as if a monkey had banged on a keyboard.
It wasn't bleating, and I never claimed the ran it. I said "In large part co-opted." Meaning, the fundamentalists have managed to insert their agenda into the party. No other poster claimed it's clearly untrue, either, they said it's open for debate.
I said co-opted in large part, and that that is changing. By co-opted, I don't mean taken over completely, I just mean that the platform of the Republican party has shifted towards the values of the Christian fringe. It seems to be less about states rights, fiscal responsibility and small government and more about upholding pro-life, anti-gay fundamentalist Christian values.
Again, I also said that it appears the more moderate Republicans are recognizing that this is not a good direction for the party, and are doing somethign about it.
How about a "fundie exchange program?" For every fundie you boot out of your party, we'll boot one out of ours. Maybe if we get rid of the crazy fringe, we can start to recognize that we aren't so different, and we all want to make our country a better place.
I mentioned a problem with the Republican party, but went on to say they were addressing it. I was making a calm and rational point, and calling for moderates from both parties to work together to keep extremists from taking over. How is this in ANY WAY flamebait?
You have to accept the fact that, in America, the Republican party has been in large part co-opted by ultra-religious interests. Fortunately, it seems that the Republicans are waking up to the fact that these people are not representative of the opinions of the majority of Americans, they do not care about many major Republican party ideals, and they are not only not worth persuing as a base of support, but actually detrimental to the party. I'm not a Republican myself, but if you are and you don't want to see your party taken over by religious funamentalists, please do what you can to keep these wingnuts out. Moderates of both sides, lets unite to keep the lunatic fringe in both our parties from taking over.
f you're going that route, the manufacturer had better explain that in the documentation so the user knows what's going on. Otherwise, they'll be getting hundreds of calls from irate users screaming, "Why can't I use this piece of junk to connect to the internet tubes! Dammit, I paid for this and now I can't use it! What kind of piece of crap are you people selling?!!!"
Aha, aha, ahahaha. If you DO put it in the documentation, on the top of every page, in red 24 point bold all caps, you will get hundreds of calls from irate users. If you DON'T, the number will be approximately 99% of whatever your userbase actually is. The other 1% will, as usual, stick their tounge in the wall socket to see if it's live before plugging in the device, somehow poke both their own eyes out with the ethernet cable, or eat the packet that says "DO NOT EAT."
...And/. ran a story about it too... it *HAS* to be real now!
If that's how it works, can/. run a story about how record numbers of geeks are getting laid?
Please?
Damn, I'm 0 for 2 on humor detection
on
SCO Vs. Groklaw
·
· Score: 1
Sorry I was kinda snide. That's the second time in as many days I've taken someone seriously when they weren't. I've gotta get my joke-detector checked...
Oh, man, I'm sorry. I thought you were being facetious and I didn't see the -- between the post and the sig. If I'd known that was your sig, I'd have known you weren't being facetious. Again, sorry I came down on you.
People are free to tell you whatever they want to. You are free to listen or not. Speech is not capable of "pounding you into the ground." As far as I can tell, there is still much debate over GPLv3 and the "RMS-is-GOD-and-can-do-no-wrong crowd" are a very small minority of open source supporters. In any case, you can always use the GPLv2 version and update it yourself under v2. Just because someone happens to think RMS is god is no reason for you to steal their work. And if there is one thing I know about the RMSIGACDNW crowd, it is that they don't give a rat's ass if you use their software or not.
What "business" are you giving that crowd, anyway? How much are you paying them? Nothing? You mean you're just a whining leach who doesn't want to contribute but wants to dictate how others contribute? Gotcha.
The scientific method is an iterative process. What I wrote is a shorthand for this:
1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypotheses
7. Publish results
Sorry if I was not clear. But modifying theories is part of the scientific method. Not as in, "I'll fudge my theory to fit the facts," but as in, "That iteration of my theory didn't correctly predict this occurance. Based on my observations, the theory needs to be modified thusly. Let me see what new predictions it makes and test for those."
No one ever said you had to switch to GPLv3. If you don't like it, don't use it. If you aren't distributing GPLv3 software, it won't even effect you.
A voluntary agreement can not in any conceivable way restrict freedom. It's voluntary, you are free to not enter the agreement. Funny how many people's definition of "freedom" really means freedom for them, not freedom for the other guy. Your position seems to advocate a kind of software socialism for corporations, where programmers are forced to cede control of their own creations in order to benefit another's bottom line.
You have demonstrated at least a passing familiarity with the slashdot ethos. That's why it's so surprising that you don't recognize the simple truth. Individuals who use open source but do nothing to contribute except yelling loudly and incoherently about it's benefits are supporting open source. Because, you know, they're, uh, rebellious non-conformists sticking it to the man. Companies who invest time and money into open source projects are still evil because, um, they're doing it for mercenary reasons. And mercenaries kill people. Which is evil. QED.
Slashdot Mirror
You obviously don't understand Buddhism. There is no self to perfect.
Buddhism makles no outrageous claims that require suspension of critical thinking to accept. It says that anything anyone says should only be accepted if it makes sense. The story of Christ, with all it's miracles and divinity, requires suspension of logical thinking to believe. This is why Buddhism is a philosophy while Christianity is a religion.
Religion may not be a universal damager. Some people may be capable of taking in the good parts without being harmed by the bad parts. This does not excuse religion at all, or justify its continued existence. There are other alternatives that provide all of the good with none of the bad.
An "Anti-religious" virus makes about as much sense as an
anti-flu" virus. An innoculation, maybe? That's exactly what I'm trying to do, innoculate people against a deadly parasite, so if by anti-religious virus, you mean an innoculation against religion, then you are correct.
Yes, they do have a place in a logical debate. Your emotional reaction to those words is what has no place in a logical debate. Those words are apt and descriptive of the problem. If you can see a way that I can say what I have to say without using those words, please let me know. It isn't the words that offend, it is the ideas behind them. You can debate the ideas all you like, but your hurt feelings are no valid reason not to state those ideas using whatever words will get the point across.
The illogic, make it stop! If something less complicated can create something more complicated, a less complicated universe could evolve into a more complicated universe, destroying the original argument for the existence of God.
I know religious people who are quite intelligent, tolerant, open-minded, and are taught to be charitable, hard-working, educated, and law-abiding.
I know very many religious people who are as you describe. In every single case, I am convinced those people would have been the same, if not better, people had religion not been a part of their life. They are just good people, plain and simple. Religion is a symptom of their desire to be good, not a cause.
The good that religion supposedly does would be done even if religion did not exist. It adds nothing good to the world that wasn't already there.
The mental virus that is known as religion is perfectly capable of infecting smart people. It makes them supider than they would have been otherwise, it doesn't turn them into morons.
Buddhism denies the importance of the existence of anything remotely classifiable as "the divine." It is a philosophy, not a religion. Individual salvation is utterly different from enlightenment. Salvation assumes there is something to be forgiven, and someone to be saved. Buddhism rejects both notions.
I was raised non-religious, by completely open minded parents who encouraged me to find my own path and learn about all religions. I have studied very many religions and spoken in depth with very many religious people. I have never been directly harmed by religion, which is perhaps why I can see the harm it causes others so clearly.
See? This is the kind of craziness I'm talking about. You have entered into an infinite regress. Where does this thing outside space and time come from? Either it arises from something else, or it is eternally present, or it is self created. If it arises from something else, nothing is answered, we just have added another layer to the question. If it is eternal or self created, why could the universe itself, which must be less complicated than any proposed creator, not also be eternal or self creating?
This is so ridiculous and illogical: you posit that something as complex as the universe needs a creator, you posit a creator that must be more complex than its creation, and then you say that creator itself is not created by somethign else. Please try to see how insane this sounds to those of us who have not been infected by your mental virus.
There is no responsibility that comes from being in a created universe. Just because somethin gcreated you does not put that thing in a superior position over you. It is in no position to dictate responsibility to you, to say that it is is another of those completely illogical things religion would have you believe.
There is no lack of responsibility that comes from being without a creator. All real responsibility is a form of enlightened self interest. I don't need a creator to tell me to be responsible. If being responsible makes sense, I am perfectly capable of figuring that out on my own. Turns out it does make sense, creator or no.
Whether or not there is a creator is a question that is completely seperate from the question of whether religion is a form of insanity. If there is a creator, it sure has done a piss-poor job of communicating its intentions in unambiguous ways to it's creations. Until said creator makes itself and its intentions known to me in a way that can't be faked by mentally damaged humans, the question of whether or not there is a creator is utterly meaningless.
The question of the impact of religious insanity on human well being, however, is an important one that can be answered.
Religion is different from race. Religion is consciously chose, race isn't. Religions, as a rule, mix common sense rules with some amount of logic-defying ridiculousness. The common sense rules hook people in, and then the illogic breaks their minds, rendering them incapable of making rational decisions on their own. They become cattle for the priestly class which profit from their mental enslavement. Religion teaches people that they are incapable of thinking for themselves, that they need a higher power, always speaking to them through a human intermediary, in order to know how to live correctly. Religion is a form of mass psychosis. It is no more a legitimate "belief system" than the ramblings of a paranoid schizophrenic.
Almost by definition, a person has to mentally damaged in order to accept religion. This is no slight against any person so damaged, any more than a person damaged by a viral infection is at fault. It is not your fault that your mind was infected by an insidious mental virus that has damaged your ability to think, in order to make you better at spreading the virus to others. But you should not be respected for having the virus, and your attempts to pass the virus on to others should be stopped.
A peacock's tail is also an unnecessary waste of resources, yet peahens seem to find it attractive. Sometimes, a waste of resources is a kind of brag that says, "See, potential mate, I am so fit that I can take on this handicap and still survive."
They have the right to do it, but it would be incredibly childish, not to mention financially stupid and a PR disaster. I think we're in agreement.
Oh, SNAP. That was awesome.
First off, I don't speak for slashdot. Second, I never claimed that everyone who doesn't like the GPLv3 is a whining leach. You know what? I don't particularly care for it myself. And I agree with you, this really only applies to developers. Not whining leaches, which was my point.
Nice strawman, though. Get back to me when you actually have a coherent argument, or even an incoherent one. This doesn't even rise to the level of incoherent argument. It's just a bunch of words and letters strungg together without meaning, as if a monkey had banged on a keyboard.
It wasn't bleating, and I never claimed the ran it. I said "In large part co-opted." Meaning, the fundamentalists have managed to insert their agenda into the party. No other poster claimed it's clearly untrue, either, they said it's open for debate.
I said co-opted in large part, and that that is changing. By co-opted, I don't mean taken over completely, I just mean that the platform of the Republican party has shifted towards the values of the Christian fringe. It seems to be less about states rights, fiscal responsibility and small government and more about upholding pro-life, anti-gay fundamentalist Christian values.
Again, I also said that it appears the more moderate Republicans are recognizing that this is not a good direction for the party, and are doing somethign about it.
How about a "fundie exchange program?" For every fundie you boot out of your party, we'll boot one out of ours. Maybe if we get rid of the crazy fringe, we can start to recognize that we aren't so different, and we all want to make our country a better place.
Waste your mod points modding me down. I have more karma than God, you can't fucking touch me, bitches.
I mentioned a problem with the Republican party, but went on to say they were addressing it. I was making a calm and rational point, and calling for moderates from both parties to work together to keep extremists from taking over. How is this in ANY WAY flamebait?
You have to accept the fact that, in America, the Republican party has been in large part co-opted by ultra-religious interests. Fortunately, it seems that the Republicans are waking up to the fact that these people are not representative of the opinions of the majority of Americans, they do not care about many major Republican party ideals, and they are not only not worth persuing as a base of support, but actually detrimental to the party. I'm not a Republican myself, but if you are and you don't want to see your party taken over by religious funamentalists, please do what you can to keep these wingnuts out. Moderates of both sides, lets unite to keep the lunatic fringe in both our parties from taking over.
f you're going that route, the manufacturer had better explain that in the documentation so the user knows what's going on. Otherwise, they'll be getting hundreds of calls from irate users screaming, "Why can't I use this piece of junk to connect to the internet tubes! Dammit, I paid for this and now I can't use it! What kind of piece of crap are you people selling?!!!"
Aha, aha, ahahaha. If you DO put it in the documentation, on the top of every page, in red 24 point bold all caps, you will get hundreds of calls from irate users. If you DON'T, the number will be approximately 99% of whatever your userbase actually is. The other 1% will, as usual, stick their tounge in the wall socket to see if it's live before plugging in the device, somehow poke both their own eyes out with the ethernet cable, or eat the packet that says "DO NOT EAT."
...And /. ran a story about it too... it *HAS* to be real now!
/. run a story about how record numbers of geeks are getting laid?
If that's how it works, can
Please?
Sorry I was kinda snide. That's the second time in as many days I've taken someone seriously when they weren't. I've gotta get my joke-detector checked...
Oh, man, I'm sorry. I thought you were being facetious and I didn't see the -- between the post and the sig. If I'd known that was your sig, I'd have known you weren't being facetious. Again, sorry I came down on you.
People are free to tell you whatever they want to. You are free to listen or not. Speech is not capable of "pounding you into the ground." As far as I can tell, there is still much debate over GPLv3 and the "RMS-is-GOD-and-can-do-no-wrong crowd" are a very small minority of open source supporters. In any case, you can always use the GPLv2 version and update it yourself under v2. Just because someone happens to think RMS is god is no reason for you to steal their work. And if there is one thing I know about the RMSIGACDNW crowd, it is that they don't give a rat's ass if you use their software or not.
What "business" are you giving that crowd, anyway? How much are you paying them? Nothing? You mean you're just a whining leach who doesn't want to contribute but wants to dictate how others contribute? Gotcha.
The scientific method is an iterative process. What I wrote is a shorthand for this:
1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypotheses
7. Publish results
Sorry if I was not clear. But modifying theories is part of the scientific method. Not as in, "I'll fudge my theory to fit the facts," but as in, "That iteration of my theory didn't correctly predict this occurance. Based on my observations, the theory needs to be modified thusly. Let me see what new predictions it makes and test for those."
No one ever said you had to switch to GPLv3. If you don't like it, don't use it. If you aren't distributing GPLv3 software, it won't even effect you.
A voluntary agreement can not in any conceivable way restrict freedom. It's voluntary, you are free to not enter the agreement. Funny how many people's definition of "freedom" really means freedom for them, not freedom for the other guy. Your position seems to advocate a kind of software socialism for corporations, where programmers are forced to cede control of their own creations in order to benefit another's bottom line.
You have demonstrated at least a passing familiarity with the slashdot ethos. That's why it's so surprising that you don't recognize the simple truth. Individuals who use open source but do nothing to contribute except yelling loudly and incoherently about it's benefits are supporting open source. Because, you know, they're, uh, rebellious non-conformists sticking it to the man. Companies who invest time and money into open source projects are still evil because, um, they're doing it for mercenary reasons. And mercenaries kill people. Which is evil. QED.