Christianity is one of the religions where the practitioners are the least compliant with what the real message of Christ was about. They twist it, bend it, and mold it to whatever they want it to say
I could not agree with you more on this particular point. Much of what passes for Christianity today has little to do with the teachings of Christ.
Christians are non-violent, always
Christians are not always non-violent. Two points here. 1) Christ explicitly indicated to Peter that we (Christians) should not look to extend Christianity by force. Christ did not approve of the tyranny of the Crusades.
BTW - The Jews were looking for a messiah that would be a military conqueror, and did not find that in Christ - it's one of the main reasons that they rejected Him.
2) Violence is not always contrary to Christian teaching. I believe that "just war" theory is consistent with the teachings of Christ - but that is in the area of political power, not religious power.
For the most part, I would agree with you that "organized religion" is more about protection of power than about worship of God. I can't go so far as to say that all organized churches are corrupt. They are certainly influenced by the fallible humans that participate there, but there are many Christian churches where folks earnestly desire to submit their lives to Christ, and are not consumed with personal agendas and power.
Truth (absolute truth) does exist, and you can find it in some Christian churches in the world.
Sadly, most churches are more about social causes, clubs, and family traditions than about submission to Christ's leadership. In those you will find that politics, position and power are regarded highly and those are a poison to the pursuit of truth.
more to do with the organized religions that have spawned around his name, and their pursuit of power
Here we disagree. I believe that if you look at history closely, you will find that the organized church only attained power because the early church members were willing to submit themselves personally to whatever it cost them to continue to follow Christ. Without their unswerving commitment to Christ's authority in their lives, the Christian church (as an organization) would never have gained enough credibility to wield any power. Tragically over the centuries, much of the church has become corrupt - take a look at the reformation to see some examples, and at the current day - from televangelists to abusive priests - you're right - power has corrupted.
We must not judge a philosophy by those who abuse it, but rather judge it by those who adhere strictly to the tenets of that philosophy and see the logical outcome. There are deviants in every religious movement. They are not the standard - look closely at those who follow Christ - For example - what about Billy Graham? Is he consumed with power or position? What about Mother Teresa? Was she looking to build an empire in her name? I submit to you that those two individuals have had more influence on the world of the last century than most of the organized Christian church - precisely because of their personal commitment to Christ.
god did it through means that we can't possibly understand
With all due respect, that is not the assertion that I am making, and it seems a bit unfair to suggest that it is.
I belive that God's creation of the universe and life in an orderly way provides the foundation on which we stand when using our intellect to examine the universe. The idea that it was created with order means that we have the hope of discovering that order, and could potentially understand it as well.
answer all those questions in a way that is scientifically falsifiable
I appreciate your reasoning for this line of discussion, but I disagree with you. The issue of origins is a philosophical one, not a scientific one. If you assert that matter or the universe has existed forever, that is not scientifically falsifiable. If you assert that life was deposited here via asteroid, that merely shifts the question to another point of origin - how did life begin there?
Please note that I am not suggesting that these things are not to be examined, but rather that it is disingenuous to assert that science can be used to determine the answers - or that "religion" is unqualified to answer philosophical questions.
With respect to philosophy
Why is your idea of god any more convincing than any of the thousands of others? Fair question. I believe that the God of Christianity can be more closely examined than any other god using intellect, critical thinking, and historical evidence. The fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ is poweful in this regard.
Mohammed is dead, Buddha is dead, Confucious is dead, Nietzche is dead:), Charles Russel, Mary Baker Eddy, Joseph Smith - all of the founders of the major world religions are dead - except Jesus Christ who demonstrated His infinite power by being raised from the dead.
His followers overturned the most powerful government in the world without use of force - but rather by living lives consistent with the teachings of Christ.
This one man's life has had a more profound impact on world culture, philosophy, and governance than any other person's. Jesus said: "I am the way, the truth and the life."
As a Tivoli customer, I can say that much good has come from IBM's purchase of Tivoli. Some bad has come (eg the current migration from the tivoli.com website to the ibm.com website has been a debacle.)
However, things like: a regular release schedule, fixpacks rather than an infinite number of patches to be applied individually better tracking of change requests through APARs and PTFs basically have taken Tivoli's products from a set of cool functionality that would work well with an open source model due to the complexity of implementation and support to a product set that is more like a COTS product with greater consistency than ever.
IBM has lots of problems, but it's not entirely bad....
But origins can neither be observed nor proven. We are left with speculation based on the evidence that we have.
In situations such as this (a possible parallel is forensic examination of a crime scene) we are left with collection of data and speculation about how that data came to be in that location in that particular arrangement.
The data could support many possible explanations, and I believe that we should use our intellect to sort through it and find the explanation that best fits the facts.
Having observed the facts - the complexity and apparent order involved in life in the universe, the data-richness of the RNA/DNA interplay, the utter improbability of this happening according to chance, and the concept of entropy as applied to the closed system we call the universe, my best explanation is that there is an intelligent designer.
You may choose to disagree, but it's not merely based on a mindless acceptance of Genesis 1.
Sadly, I believe that you would perceive me to be one of those fanatacis that "creep you out."
With respect to your assertion about not passing religion off in science class, I would suggest that many atheistic scientists cling to their naturalistic philosophy with religious fervor, and that many times what is called science is actually atheistic philosophy class.
Please understand that I believe strongly in science - true science - the pursuit of knowledge. The majority of the scientific giants on whose shoulders we stand today were devout followers of Jesus Christ.
Being a devout follower of Christ is not contradictory to science, but rather gives a philosophical framework that can be followed to persue knowledge.
The idea that an intelligent designer created the universe and life according to a plan provides a model whereby the idea of studying life can show us the design that He used.
Science changes its understanding of the facts frequently, sometimes in large and fundamental measures. Recently cosmologists discovered planets much larger than they had ever seen before, and their very existence invalidated many many assumptions and theories about planetary formation.
The fact that scientific endevours are undertaken by fallible humans means that our pride and prejudice can interfere with our pursuit of pure science. It can also interfere with our study and understanding of philosophy or religion.
Putting scientists to death who contradict "official" religious teaching is an example of such interference.
Regards, Anomaly PS - God loves you and logs for relationship with you.
I'll be happy to grant that it is possible that the atheistic cosmologists have come up with some good explanations.
However, I would submit to you that the currently proposed theories about the start of the universe carry far less pull than your analogy would indicate.
With respect to the Christians who have no problem with these theories, many people don't give any thought to these sorts of things and might object if they understood the theological implications of the cosmologists' theories.
With all due respect, the question of origins is ultimately a philosophical question and not a scientific one. Since we cannot observe and repeat the universal creation process, we cannot subject it to the scientific method.
What we can do is collect evidence and conjecture theories about what caused the evidence.
Ultimately that is what atheistic cosmologists and Christian cosmologists do - collect data, and have a theory about what caused the data.
You may argue that Christian cosmologists have a bias. I would submit to you that scientists with an a priori commitment to materialism have a bias as well.
As a law abiding citizen, who is terribly upset by the wrongs done by violent members of our society, I tend to have little sympathy for those who have been convicted of crimes and are serving time in prison.
However, rape in prison is no joke! According to this link (which has links to other, less "biased" organizations)
Approximately 21% of inmates have forced sexual contact.
Approximately 2/3 of prisoners are there for committing non-violent crimes.
I admit that there's a temptation to think pleasant thoughts about a violent criminal finding out what it feels like to be a victim in prison, but while prison should not be fun (it is punishment, after all) prisoners should not be victimized while jailers turn a blind eye. That is uncivilized and cruel. Anomaly
PS God loves you and longs for relationship with you. If you would like to know more about this, please email me.
I've got several computers at home and I too am cheap. Since I didn't want to pay MS a bunch 'o' money for licenses, and I won't steal software - Open Source is my friend!
The first conversion was when my wife and I married. She had used Windows for quite a while and was a little hesitant to make the move to Linux. When I set up a machine for her - Gnome/Star Office/Netscape - she said - "This looks like Windows to me..." She hasn't turned back. My wife is cool!
My 12 yr old niece visited last summer. I asked her if she wanted to chat with her friends on AIM. She enthusiastically said "YES!" I downloaded a new version of GAIM, installed it, and began with the "this is not Windows, but it looks similar" speech. She sat down, changed her default typeface and colors, added her friends to her buddy list and started chatting with her friends. I left the room. She simply did not need my help.
There have been a few things over the years that have not worked well, and some things that we have not yet been able to completely resolve, but that is true of _any_ OS.
Things that don't work well: 1. Clip art - MS does a great job of making clip art easy to find and use in their products. Other companies market clip art, but I have yet to find a clip art collection that is indexed well and easy to use on Linux. I can install clip art on my redhat box, but it's just not as easy as Windows.
2. Fonts - Again, MS makes typeface selection easy. This is _much_better today than it was just a few years ago, but still not quite as easy as Windows. I won't steal fonts either, so font conversion is sometimes an issue when receiving documents or printing them.
3. Games - We don't play many games, but my wife has found a large number of websites with flash-based games that work fine under Linux (Mozilla/Galeon with the flash5 plugin) - She has also found a number of kid-friendly websites that are compatible with Linux. I've got a friend who is on the development team for SOF2. He sent me a copy. I see that it is listed as an application that works under WINE, but I had a problem with the WINE build on Mandrake 8.2. I spent a little time trying to troubleshoot this, but quickly got bored with it and gave up. I booted under '98SE and played.
4. Printing - Two components here: Installation of new hardware, and troubleshooting active print jobs.
4.1 The installation component gets better every year, ghostscript does a decent job translating so that non-PS printers work pretty well, but the management tools (print head cleaners, diagnostic utils) don't work under Linux at all. (Well, to be honest, I haven't tried to get the Windows S/W to work on Linux.)
4.2 Troubleshooting - While Windows does provide a GUI to show the state of jobs in the queue, it too is difficult to troubleshoot. Ask a windows helpdesk tech how often the complain is "I can't print." This has room for improvement on Linux.
5. My digital camera sometimes loses connection to my Linux box. I've found that unloading and reloading the usb kernel module fixes this. I'm unwilling to document/teach my wife how to do this. She could easily learn it, but it's too much hassle for her.
Things that don't work: 1. Online transactions with my bank. My bank does not support any browser other than IE. Additionally, I am unaware of software for Linux that will allow me to download transactions from my bank and transfer money between accounts. I have a copy of VMWare and MS Money that solve this problem, but I'd like to find an open source tool to do this for me.
2. Media content - Between quicktime and MS media solutions being absent on Linux, this is a gap that we have worked around. There's little content of this type that interests my wife, so we've been able to ignore this failing up to now. Real works on Linux and mostly meets our needs based on the occasional use. If there's some content that my wife _really_ wants to see, I can bring home a notebook running XP. Yes, the crossover plugin exists: $25 per machine, and won't be able to support "recent" versions of Windows Media Player.
3. My parallel port scanner - There are no drivers for my old, cheap scanner to allow SANE to consider it a data source. I need to boot Windows to use this device. A hassle, but not a major one since we don't scan all that often. I'm in the market for a cheap, decent scanner. Unfortunately since I strongly avoid products manufactured in China, this limits my options significantly. <soapbox> China's human rights record is abysmal, and there's no such thing as freedom of religion there. You can be imprisoned for as long as three years without due process, and I know of a woman who is serving two years in a labor camp - convicted of believing in God. </soapbox>
I've been almost MS free (most of my PCs have no MS software on them) for the last five years, and it has been worth it. I have saved a fortune on software licenses, and have been able to keep using very old hardware because I have not needed to upgrade - I can easily turn off services that are not needed. I'm using a P133 as a firewall, and another as a file/print/cron server - and the two Athlon 750's make great desktop workstations. This has saved me $$ on hardware, too.
Based on the good experiences that I've had, I'm planning to help introduce more and more Linux solutions to my company. Linux is great!
Regards, Anomaly
PS - God loves you and longs for relationship with you. If you want to know more about this, please email me
I used to have the job that you have (different company, same deal) and the inconsistencies will detroy you!
If I only knew then what I know today!
Standard images (and standard hardware) are your friend. Installation packages of the software so that it can be installed in unattended mode will save you huge amounts of time.
You'll need a software distribution mechanism - if you're an entirely Windows shop, leveraging active directory for software deployment can save you incredible amounts of time.
Ideally you would have just the OS in the "gold disk" so that when your applications change (and they do VERY often in that world) you don't need to re-burn the image.
Documentation of installation order is a critical function as well. Yes, installing IE before versus after another application can make your PC very unhappy.
A software inventory tool might be helpful, too - does classroom #5 have Project '98 or Project 2000?
I hope that you can get the management support to replace that hardware and get the management tools that you need, or that you can find a better job.
If they won't help you get the tools that you need, you're far better off working for someone who will get the needed tools.
Pilot your proposed solution in one classroom first, and when you've got it tweaked, then migrate it to another one.
I'm working on an implementation of a closed-source proprietary application. This app is installable on unix and Windows boxes.
The code repository is on an AIX box here, and I needed to make that available to a Windows box. I don't have root on the AIX box, but I do have root on a linux box. I nfs-mounted the code repository to my Linux box, and was able to export _that_ filesystem using Samba in a matter of minutes.
Rather than fighting political battles, I'm getting my work done. That would be much more difficult if the Samba team wasn't doing a great job.
I've read some comments dinging Samba for not being a perfect clone of SMB/CIFS. I can understand frustration when you need a feature that's not available yet, but we should all be thankful that any interoperability is possible.
Fair enough, but with no objective standard on which to base judgements, it's nothing more than your opinion. That's the problem with relativism. It's just your opinion that it's "bad" for me to believe that there is one way (for anything.)
If there are objective standards that transcend individuals and cultures, then there is a "right" way and a "wrong" way - a "good" and a "bad."
If there are no standards, then the rightness or wrongness is completely dependent on who you ask - and life is pretty meaningless.
As far as closd-minded is concerned, is it closed minded to say that when the sun is visible that it is daytime, or is it merely accurate?
I think that you're missing out on an incredibly rich component of relationship by having sex merley for the purpose of conquest or release.
It's like seeing a hot fudge sundae, having your mouth water, and not ever tasting the dessert, yet pretending that you're enjoying that as much as you would if you ate it.
Sure, sex w/o an emotional connection feels good, but fulfilling? You must either be joking or in denial because you're not willing to pay what it costs to have a genunine relationship.
I have heard about this survey from sources that I consider to be reliable, and had not done a comprehensive search for the raw data. At this point the best information I can find about the research is in the endnotes in this article: http://www.palmettofamily.org/Reports/Ma rriage/HTM LRpt/marr01.htm
1 Robert T. Michael, et. al., Sex in America: A Definitive Survey (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1994), p. 1, 131. 2 Edward O. Laumann, et. al., The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994), p. 364, table 10.5.
I'm fairly certain that the local library can get the raw data on which the article was based.
It has been said that "it is not reasonable to judge a philosophy by those who abuse it - rather judge a philosophy by those adherents who faithfully hold to the teachings of their philosophy and see what the logical outcome is."
Killing of innocents is wrong - why? Doesn't it make sense that if there are no absolutes (transcending all individuals) that the logical conclusion is that might makes right?
So why shouldn't I kill innocents if I want to do it? If I can be more powerful than you, and others who think like you, why shouldn't I wipe you out?
It seems to me that if I am accountable only to other humans for the things that I do the logical conclusion is that I should expect to have extremely great lattitude in my lifestyle and choices.
I want you to know that in my response below I mean you no disrespect personally. I do have some serious issues with your logic.
How can you say that it is not possible to prove that our standard is valid?
Saying that is making a moral judgement, and establishing the very absolute that you are decreeing impossible. In philosophical terms, this is known as "self-referentially incoherent."
Furthermore, suggesting that God should be able to create a rock that He cannot lift is like asking me to describe the aroma of the color "9" - it's nonsense. It's also similar to asking how much electricity loves someone. Utter nonsense.
Define God - that is a HUGE question. I'll describe some of His attributes. 1) Omnipotence - Complete power to do anything consistent with His Character
2) Omniscience - complete knowledge of all things simultaneously
3) Omnipresence - everywhere present in totality at the same time.
4) Mercy - compassion or forbearance shown especially to an offender or to one subject to one's power
5) Grace - unmerited divine assistance given humans - God doesn't give us what we deserve.
The very fact that God (who is holy, pure, and perfect) allows any of us (who are unholy, imperfect, and impure) to continue to exist is a powerful example of His character.
Regards, Anomaly BTW - I do not "want you to conform to my moral standard." I am willing to share with you the goodness that I have experienced as a result of my relationship with Jesus Christ, and also to communicate to you what I sincerely believe that God says about those people who reject Him. Whether you conform to that standard or not is simply your decision.
No evidence? Have you ever examined the evidence for Christianity? Do you even know the message of Christianity?
There is a substantial amount of evidence that Christianity is true. If you anre interested, I would be honored to share some of it with you. Please email me for more information.
1) Occams's razor - Much of the material universe displays a dizzying amount of order - far more than can easily be explained merely by time and chance. The amount of precision with which the universe operates leaves the most likely explanation that of an intelligent designer.
2) If you are a naturalist, and you sincerely believe that all that is here is on the basis of time and chance, then how can it be possible that reason and logic are valid? How do you know that your "reason" has any relevance? Might it just be gibberish? That has as at least as plausible an explanation as the "big script" idea.
I'll write more in a bit, but my first visceral reaction to this:
a lot of people seem to find a lot of things immoral that I do not. These people tend to be religious, and they tend to want me to conform to their moral standard.
Is that it sounds to me like you are saying that you would like it very much if those religious types would conform to your moral standard - which says that there are no absolutes!:-)
It was not my intention to suggest that atheists are immoral. I'm sorry that what I wrote sounded like that to you. What I meant to communicate is largely in agreement with what you wrote above - that absent the existence of an objective standard it comes down to the individual's conscience.
However, when you make that statement, you do two things: 1) You are stating a moral absolute. (That no absolute exists.) 2) You are saying that your opinion has more or less merit than someone else's. This too, requires a moral judgment dependent on some sort of moral standard.
The DC sniper, and Al Queda terrorists are probably acting within the guidelines of their conscience - as do I, and as you suggest above - as do you.
The fact that we claim to have a standard does not address the validity of that standard. I'm pretty sure that the DC sniper and Al Queda are in violation of what your conscience and mine would agree is reprehensible. The question to answer is why would you and I agree?
WRT the existence of God: When one asserts that there is no God, by the nature of that statement (assertion of a logical negative) one must in one instant have all knowledge of all that exists.
Otherwise would it not be possible for the thing that is asserted not to exist - simply exist in a portion of the universe about which the person making the assertion is not knowledgeable?
In short - to authoritatively assert that no god exists requires that one posess attributes that only god could have. I belive that this refutes the premise.
This leaves us with the concept that God may or may not exist, and we need to determine whether we belive that He does or does not. This depends on evidence and our interpretation of it.
WRT the provability of the existence of God - I'm curious...what evidence would be sufficient to convince you?
WRT "one person" - Can you really be sure? Why is sex with lots of people "better" than sex with one?
Ejaculation feels great - no matter what the stimlus that gets you there, but that feeling is over in a matter of seconds and then what determines satisfaction is the emotional component.
I've got an emotional closeness with my wife that people who have one night stands could never have. We accept each other's flaws and imperfections and make a conscious choice to value each other and give ourselves to each other sexually.
People who have little or no commitment - just sex - are not looking to give anything to the other person - they are just looking to "get some."
How satisfying can it be when a) you are just looking for orgasm, b) your partner is just looking for orgasm, and you both know it? How can it be anything other than emotionally empty?
Slashdot Mirror
Christianity is one of the religions where the practitioners are the least compliant with what the real message of Christ was about. They twist it, bend it, and mold it to whatever they want it to say
I could not agree with you more on this particular point. Much of what passes for Christianity today has little to do with the teachings of Christ.
Christians are non-violent, always
Christians are not always non-violent. Two points here.
1) Christ explicitly indicated to Peter that we (Christians) should not look to extend Christianity by force. Christ did not approve of the tyranny of the Crusades.
BTW - The Jews were looking for a messiah that would be a military conqueror, and did not find that in Christ - it's one of the main reasons that they rejected Him.
2) Violence is not always contrary to Christian teaching. I believe that "just war" theory is consistent with the teachings of Christ - but that is in the area of political power, not religious power.
For the most part, I would agree with you that "organized religion" is more about protection of power than about worship of God. I can't go so far as to say that all organized churches are corrupt. They are certainly influenced by the fallible humans that participate there, but there are many Christian churches where folks earnestly desire to submit their lives to Christ, and are not consumed with personal agendas and power.
Truth (absolute truth) does exist, and you can find it in some Christian churches in the world.
Sadly, most churches are more about social causes, clubs, and family traditions than about submission to Christ's leadership. In those you will find that politics, position and power are regarded highly and those are a poison to the pursuit of truth.
more to do with the organized religions that have spawned around his name, and their pursuit of power
Here we disagree. I believe that if you look at history closely, you will find that the organized church only attained power because the early church members were willing to submit themselves personally to whatever it cost them to continue to follow Christ. Without their unswerving commitment to Christ's authority in their lives, the Christian church (as an organization) would never have gained enough credibility to wield any power. Tragically over the centuries, much of the church has become corrupt - take a look at the reformation to see some examples, and at the current day - from televangelists to abusive priests - you're right - power has corrupted.
We must not judge a philosophy by those who abuse it, but rather judge it by those who adhere strictly to the tenets of that philosophy and see the logical outcome. There are deviants in every religious movement. They are not the standard - look closely at those who follow Christ - For example - what about Billy Graham? Is he consumed with power or position? What about Mother Teresa? Was she looking to build an empire in her name? I submit to you that those two individuals have had more influence on the world of the last century than most of the organized Christian church - precisely because of their personal commitment to Christ.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
With respect to science...
:), Charles Russel, Mary Baker Eddy, Joseph Smith - all of the founders of the major world religions are dead - except Jesus Christ who demonstrated His infinite power by being raised from the dead.
god did it through means that we can't possibly understand
With all due respect, that is not the assertion that I am making, and it seems a bit unfair to suggest that it is.
I belive that God's creation of the universe and life in an orderly way provides the foundation on which we stand when using our intellect to examine the universe. The idea that it was created with order means that we have the hope of discovering that order, and could potentially understand it as well.
answer all those questions in a way that is scientifically falsifiable
I appreciate your reasoning for this line of discussion, but I disagree with you. The issue of origins is a philosophical one, not a scientific one. If you assert that matter or the universe has existed forever, that is not scientifically falsifiable. If you assert that life was deposited here via asteroid, that merely shifts the question to another point of origin - how did life begin there?
Please note that I am not suggesting that these things are not to be examined, but rather that it is disingenuous to assert that science can be used to determine the answers - or that "religion" is unqualified to answer philosophical questions.
With respect to philosophy
Why is your idea of god any more convincing than any of the thousands of others?
Fair question. I believe that the God of Christianity can be more closely examined than any other god using intellect, critical thinking, and historical evidence. The fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ is poweful in this regard.
Mohammed is dead, Buddha is dead, Confucious is dead, Nietzche is dead
His followers overturned the most powerful government in the world without use of force - but rather by living lives consistent with the teachings of Christ.
This one man's life has had a more profound impact on world culture, philosophy, and governance than any other person's.
Jesus said: "I am the way, the truth and the life."
Regards,
Anomaly
As a Tivoli customer, I can say that much good has come from IBM's purchase of Tivoli. Some bad has come (eg the current migration from the tivoli.com website to the ibm.com website has been a debacle.)
However, things like:
a regular release schedule,
fixpacks rather than an infinite number of patches to be applied individually
better tracking of change requests through APARs and PTFs
basically have taken Tivoli's products from a set of cool functionality that would work well with an open source model due to the complexity of implementation and support to a product set that is more like a COTS product with greater consistency than ever.
IBM has lots of problems, but it's not entirely bad....
Regards,
Anomaly
But origins can neither be observed nor proven. We are left with speculation based on the evidence that we have.
In situations such as this (a possible parallel is forensic examination of a crime scene) we are left with collection of data and speculation about how that data came to be in that location in that particular arrangement.
The data could support many possible explanations, and I believe that we should use our intellect to sort through it and find the explanation that best fits the facts.
Having observed the facts - the complexity and apparent order involved in life in the universe, the data-richness of the RNA/DNA interplay, the utter improbability of this happening according to chance, and the concept of entropy as applied to the closed system we call the universe, my best explanation is that there is an intelligent designer.
You may choose to disagree, but it's not merely based on a mindless acceptance of Genesis 1.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
I think that we agree on many many points.
Sadly, I believe that you would perceive me to be one of those fanatacis that "creep you out."
With respect to your assertion about not passing religion off in science class, I would suggest that many atheistic scientists cling to their naturalistic philosophy with religious fervor, and that many times what is called science is actually atheistic philosophy class.
Please understand that I believe strongly in science - true science - the pursuit of knowledge. The majority of the scientific giants on whose shoulders we stand today were devout followers of Jesus Christ.
Being a devout follower of Christ is not contradictory to science, but rather gives a philosophical framework that can be followed to persue knowledge.
The idea that an intelligent designer created the universe and life according to a plan provides a model whereby the idea of studying life can show us the design that He used.
Science changes its understanding of the facts frequently, sometimes in large and fundamental measures. Recently cosmologists discovered planets much larger than they had ever seen before, and their very existence invalidated many many assumptions and theories about planetary formation.
The fact that scientific endevours are undertaken by fallible humans means that our pride and prejudice can interfere with our pursuit of pure science. It can also interfere with our study and understanding of philosophy or religion.
Putting scientists to death who contradict "official" religious teaching is an example of such interference.
Regards,
Anomaly
PS - God loves you and logs for relationship with you.
Of course, that is based on the philosophical "law of causation," which leaves the materialist with the "uncaused cause" problem.
If the material universe (in one form or another) has existed for eternity, then shouldn't it have equilibrated before now?
If it was subject to somewhat different "laws" before the big bang, how can we hope to guess what happened pre-big-bang?
I'll be happy to grant that it is possible that the atheistic cosmologists have come up with some good explanations.
However, I would submit to you that the currently proposed theories about the start of the universe carry far less pull than your analogy would indicate.
With respect to the Christians who have no problem with these theories, many people don't give any thought to these sorts of things and might object if they understood the theological implications of the cosmologists' theories.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
With all due respect, the question of origins is ultimately a philosophical question and not a scientific one. Since we cannot observe and repeat the universal creation process, we cannot subject it to the scientific method.
What we can do is collect evidence and conjecture theories about what caused the evidence.
Ultimately that is what atheistic cosmologists and Christian cosmologists do - collect data, and have a theory about what caused the data.
You may argue that Christian cosmologists have a bias. I would submit to you that scientists with an a priori commitment to materialism have a bias as well.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
As a law abiding citizen, who is terribly upset by the wrongs done by violent members of our society, I tend to have little sympathy for those who have been convicted of crimes and are serving time in prison.
However, rape in prison is no joke! According to this link (which has links to other, less "biased" organizations)
Approximately 21% of inmates have forced sexual contact.
Approximately 2/3 of prisoners are there for committing non-violent crimes.
I admit that there's a temptation to think pleasant thoughts about a violent criminal finding out what it feels like to be a victim in prison, but while prison should not be fun (it is punishment, after all) prisoners should not be victimized while jailers turn a blind eye. That is uncivilized and cruel.
Anomaly
PS God loves you and longs for relationship with you. If you would like to know more about this, please email me.
I've got several computers at home and I too am cheap. Since I didn't want to pay MS a bunch 'o' money for licenses, and I won't steal software - Open Source is my friend!
The first conversion was when my wife and I married. She had used Windows for quite a while and was a little hesitant to make the move to Linux. When I set up a machine for her - Gnome/Star Office/Netscape - she said - "This looks like Windows to me..." She hasn't turned back. My wife is cool!
My 12 yr old niece visited last summer. I asked her if she wanted to chat with her friends on AIM. She enthusiastically said "YES!" I downloaded a new version of GAIM, installed it, and began with the "this is not Windows, but it looks similar" speech. She sat down, changed her default typeface and colors, added her friends to her buddy list and started chatting with her friends. I left the room. She simply did not need my help.
There have been a few things over the years that have not worked well, and some things that we have not yet been able to completely resolve, but that is true of _any_ OS.
Things that don't work well:
1. Clip art - MS does a great job of making clip art easy to find and use in their products. Other companies market clip art, but I have yet to find a clip art collection that is indexed well and easy to use on Linux. I can install clip art on my redhat box, but it's just not as easy as Windows.
2. Fonts - Again, MS makes typeface selection easy. This is _much_better today than it was just a few years ago, but still not quite as easy as Windows. I won't steal fonts either, so font conversion is sometimes an issue when receiving documents or printing them.
3. Games - We don't play many games, but my wife has found a large number of websites with flash-based games that work fine under Linux (Mozilla/Galeon with the flash5 plugin) - She has also found a number of kid-friendly websites that are compatible with Linux. I've got a friend who is on the development team for SOF2. He sent me a copy. I see that it is listed as an application that works under WINE, but I had a problem with the WINE build on Mandrake 8.2. I spent a little time trying to troubleshoot this, but quickly got bored with it and gave up. I booted under '98SE and played.
4. Printing - Two components here: Installation of new hardware, and troubleshooting active print jobs.
4.1 The installation component gets better every year, ghostscript does a decent job translating so that non-PS printers work pretty well, but the management tools (print head cleaners, diagnostic utils) don't work under Linux at all. (Well, to be honest, I haven't tried to get the Windows S/W to work on Linux.)
4.2 Troubleshooting - While Windows does provide a GUI to show the state of jobs in the queue, it too is difficult to troubleshoot. Ask a windows helpdesk tech how often the complain is "I can't print." This has room for improvement on Linux.
5. My digital camera sometimes loses connection to my Linux box. I've found that unloading and reloading the usb kernel module fixes this. I'm unwilling to document/teach my wife how to do this. She could easily learn it, but it's too much hassle for her.
Things that don't work:
1. Online transactions with my bank. My bank does not support any browser other than IE. Additionally, I am unaware of software for Linux that will allow me to download transactions from my bank and transfer money between accounts. I have a copy of VMWare and MS Money that solve this problem, but I'd like to find an open source tool to do this for me.
2. Media content - Between quicktime and MS media solutions being absent on Linux, this is a gap that we have worked around. There's little content of this type that interests my wife, so we've been able to ignore this failing up to now. Real works on Linux and mostly meets our needs based on the occasional use. If there's some content that my wife _really_ wants to see, I can bring home a notebook running XP. Yes, the crossover plugin exists: $25 per machine, and won't be able to support "recent" versions of Windows Media Player.
3. My parallel port scanner - There are no drivers for my old, cheap scanner to allow SANE to consider it a data source. I need to boot Windows to use this device. A hassle, but not a major one since we don't scan all that often. I'm in the market for a cheap, decent scanner. Unfortunately since I strongly avoid products manufactured in China, this limits my options significantly.
<soapbox> China's human rights record is abysmal, and there's no such thing as freedom of religion there. You can be imprisoned for as long as three years without due process, and I know of a woman who is serving two years in a labor camp - convicted of believing in God. </soapbox>
I've been almost MS free (most of my PCs have no MS software on them) for the last five years, and it has been worth it. I have saved a fortune on software licenses, and have been able to keep using very old hardware because I have not needed to upgrade - I can easily turn off services that are not needed. I'm using a P133 as a firewall, and another as a file/print/cron server - and the two Athlon 750's make great desktop workstations. This has saved me $$ on hardware, too.
Based on the good experiences that I've had, I'm planning to help introduce more and more Linux solutions to my company. Linux is great!
Regards,
Anomaly
PS - God loves you and longs for relationship with you. If you want to know more about this, please email me
I used to have the job that you have (different company, same deal) and the inconsistencies will detroy you!
If I only knew then what I know today!
Standard images (and standard hardware) are your friend. Installation packages of the software so that it can be installed in unattended mode will save you huge amounts of time.
You'll need a software distribution mechanism - if you're an entirely Windows shop, leveraging active directory for software deployment can save you incredible amounts of time.
Ideally you would have just the OS in the "gold disk" so that when your applications change (and they do VERY often in that world) you don't need to re-burn the image.
Documentation of installation order is a critical function as well. Yes, installing IE before versus after another application can make your PC very unhappy.
A software inventory tool might be helpful, too - does classroom #5 have Project '98 or Project 2000?
I hope that you can get the management support to replace that hardware and get the management tools that you need, or that you can find a better job.
If they won't help you get the tools that you need, you're far better off working for someone who will get the needed tools.
Pilot your proposed solution in one classroom first, and when you've got it tweaked, then migrate it to another one.
Hope this helps.
Anomaly
I have to say thanks to the SAMBA team!
I'm working on an implementation of a closed-source proprietary application. This app is installable on unix and Windows boxes.
The code repository is on an AIX box here, and I needed to make that available to a Windows box. I don't have root on the AIX box, but I do have root on a linux box. I nfs-mounted the code repository to my Linux box, and was able to export _that_ filesystem using Samba in a matter of minutes.
Rather than fighting political battles, I'm getting my work done. That would be much more difficult if the Samba team wasn't doing a great job.
I've read some comments dinging Samba for not being a perfect clone of SMB/CIFS. I can understand frustration when you need a feature that's not available yet, but we should all be thankful that any interoperability is possible.
Keep up the good work!
Regards,
Anomaly
Fair enough, but with no objective standard on which to base judgements, it's nothing more than your opinion. That's the problem with relativism. It's just your opinion that it's "bad" for me to believe that there is one way (for anything.)
If there are objective standards that transcend individuals and cultures, then there is a "right" way and a "wrong" way - a "good" and a "bad."
If there are no standards, then the rightness or wrongness is completely dependent on who you ask - and life is pretty meaningless.
As far as closd-minded is concerned, is it closed minded to say that when the sun is visible that it is daytime, or is it merely accurate?
WRT ad hominem attack, I belive that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
On what basis did you make the judgement "bad for you" in your original posting? Who says that my position is bad?
Respectfully,
Anomaly
I think that you're missing out on an incredibly rich component of relationship by having sex merley for the purpose of conquest or release.
It's like seeing a hot fudge sundae, having your mouth water, and not ever tasting the dessert, yet pretending that you're enjoying that as much as you would if you ate it.
Sure, sex w/o an emotional connection feels good, but fulfilling? You must either be joking or in denial because you're not willing to pay what it costs to have a genunine relationship.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
I have heard about this survey from sources that I consider to be reliable, and had not done a comprehensive search for the raw data. At this point the best information I can find about the research is in the endnotes in this article:a rriage/HTM LRpt/marr01.htm
http://www.palmettofamily.org/Reports/M
1 Robert T. Michael, et. al., Sex in America: A Definitive Survey (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1994), p. 1, 131.
2 Edward O. Laumann, et. al., The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994), p. 364, table 10.5.
I'm fairly certain that the local library can get the raw data on which the article was based.
Hope this helps!
Regards,
Anomaly
It has been said that "it is not reasonable to judge a philosophy by those who abuse it - rather judge a philosophy by those adherents who faithfully hold to the teachings of their philosophy and see what the logical outcome is."
Killing of innocents is wrong - why? Doesn't it make sense that if there are no absolutes (transcending all individuals) that the logical conclusion is that might makes right?
So why shouldn't I kill innocents if I want to do it? If I can be more powerful than you, and others who think like you, why shouldn't I wipe you out?
It seems to me that if I am accountable only to other humans for the things that I do the logical conclusion is that I should expect to have extremely great lattitude in my lifestyle and choices.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
I know that it's bad form to quote yourself, but I wrote a synopsis of this in another posting here. Please read that and feel free to respond.
Regards,
Anomaly
I want you to know that in my response below I mean you no disrespect personally. I do have some serious issues with your logic.
How can you say that it is not possible to prove that our standard is valid?
Saying that is making a moral judgement, and establishing the very absolute that you are decreeing impossible. In philosophical terms, this is known as "self-referentially incoherent."
Furthermore, suggesting that God should be able to create a rock that He cannot lift is like asking me to describe the aroma of the color "9" - it's nonsense. It's also similar to asking how much electricity loves someone. Utter nonsense.
Define God - that is a HUGE question. I'll describe some of His attributes.
1) Omnipotence - Complete power to do anything consistent with His Character
2) Omniscience - complete knowledge of all things simultaneously
3) Omnipresence - everywhere present in totality at the same time.
4) Mercy - compassion or forbearance shown especially to an offender or to one subject to one's power
5) Grace - unmerited divine assistance given humans - God doesn't give us what we deserve.
The very fact that God (who is holy, pure, and perfect) allows any of us (who are unholy, imperfect, and impure) to continue to exist is a powerful example of His character.
Regards,
Anomaly
BTW - I do not "want you to conform to my moral standard." I am willing to share with you the goodness that I have experienced as a result of my relationship with Jesus Christ, and also to communicate to you what I sincerely believe that God says about those people who reject Him. Whether you conform to that standard or not is simply your decision.
No evidence? Have you ever examined the evidence for Christianity? Do you even know the message of Christianity?
There is a substantial amount of evidence that Christianity is true. If you anre interested, I would be honored to share some of it with you. Please email me for more information.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
1) Occams's razor - Much of the material universe displays a dizzying amount of order - far more than can easily be explained merely by time and chance. The amount of precision with which the universe operates leaves the most likely explanation that of an intelligent designer.
2) If you are a naturalist, and you sincerely believe that all that is here is on the basis of time and chance, then how can it be possible that reason and logic are valid? How do you know that your "reason" has any relevance? Might it just be gibberish? That has as at least as plausible an explanation as the "big script" idea.
I'll write more in a bit, but my first visceral reaction to this:
:-)
a lot of people seem to find a lot of things immoral that I do not. These people tend to be religious, and they tend to want me to conform to their moral standard.
Is that it sounds to me like you are saying that you would like it very much if those religious types would conform to your moral standard - which says that there are no absolutes!
What evidence would be sufficient to convince you of God's existence?
It was not my intention to suggest that atheists are immoral. I'm sorry that what I wrote sounded like that to you. What I meant to communicate is largely in agreement with what you wrote above - that absent the existence of an objective standard it comes down to the individual's conscience.
However, when you make that statement, you do two things:
1) You are stating a moral absolute. (That no absolute exists.)
2) You are saying that your opinion has more or less merit than someone else's. This too, requires a moral judgment dependent on some sort of moral standard.
The DC sniper, and Al Queda terrorists are probably acting within the guidelines of their conscience - as do I, and as you suggest above - as do you.
The fact that we claim to have a standard does not address the validity of that standard. I'm pretty sure that the DC sniper and Al Queda are in violation of what your conscience and mine would agree is reprehensible. The question to answer is why would you and I agree?
WRT the existence of God:
When one asserts that there is no God, by the nature of that statement (assertion of a logical negative) one must in one instant have all knowledge of all that exists.
Otherwise would it not be possible for the thing that is asserted not to exist - simply exist in a portion of the universe about which the person making the assertion is not knowledgeable?
In short - to authoritatively assert that no god exists requires that one posess attributes that only god could have. I belive that this refutes the premise.
This leaves us with the concept that God may or may not exist, and we need to determine whether we belive that He does or does not. This depends on evidence and our interpretation of it.
WRT the provability of the existence of God - I'm curious...what evidence would be sufficient to convince you?
Respectfully,
Anomaly
WRT "one person" - Can you really be sure? Why is sex with lots of people "better" than sex with one?
Ejaculation feels great - no matter what the stimlus that gets you there, but that feeling is over in a matter of seconds and then what determines satisfaction is the emotional component.
I've got an emotional closeness with my wife that people who have one night stands could never have. We accept each other's flaws and imperfections and make a conscious choice to value each other and give ourselves to each other sexually.
People who have little or no commitment - just sex - are not looking to give anything to the other person - they are just looking to "get some."
How satisfying can it be when a) you are just looking for orgasm, b) your partner is just looking for orgasm, and you both know it? How can it be anything other than emotionally empty?
Respectfully,
Anomaly