>>But you don't do enough to stop these fundamentalist hate-mongers, though. So because you're not actively speaking out against them, you are implicitly supporting them.
Hmm, going on Slashdot (and opening myself to flames from a thousand and one angry atheists) criticizing them doesn't count?
If it doesn't, I'll post it some other way. I find it vaguely amusing.
>>It's got to work both ways.
I actually agree with you. I wish that atheists would disown their more nutty and rabid speakers, like Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris (I sort of like Dan Dennet, but he can be just as bad sometimes). As a Christian, I actively speak out against fundamentalists, especially the anti-intellectuals. And I do wish Muslims would speak out more disowning the radicals, but to be fair, a lot of them have, but have just been filtered out by Fox News (because it goes against their screed).
>>>>Religion has, historically speaking, been the greatest force for good our planet has ever seen. >>[citation needed]
Yay, the ignorant are coming out of the woodwork.
If you haven't ever studied history, and just listened to your fellow atheists bitch about how religion hates sciences and is holding the world back, then you have an excuse for that. Otherwise, sorry. You're an ignoramus.
Pretty much our entire system of natural rights is based on being endowed by their creator (sound familiar), so not even a government can take them away. Contrast this with countries that did not develop with a Christian heritage, and see how far your civil rights go there.
The notion of Universal Charity was really Jesus' revolutionary message, and it really did transform the world, causing more good as a result of it than any other single idea.
Hitchens, by contrast, think that it is the worst thing that has ever happened to the world. This is (in part) why I said he's a frothing moron. He speaks and writes books that are at complete odds with history.
>>Hm? How do you measure qualifications in theology? So far, I haven't been able to discern 'good' theologists from 'bad' ones.
How do you measure qualification in any field of literature analysis - such as Redology, the study of A Dream of Red Mansions (an actual field of study in China)?
>>Beware of the spaghetti monster. It is coming to get us all real soon now. Repent while you still can and get some tomato sauce with that if you please.
You know that Dawkins made the argument that religion doesn't really change the way we act? Therefore, eating all the pasta I can won't make me fat. I love being a spaghetti monster atheist!
>>Let's say that we accept the theory that something needed to jumpstart the universe, and that thing does not necessarily have to follow the same rules the universe does (and thus doesn't need a creator of it's own).
Indeed. The First Cause argument is not proof that God exists, merely is a point in favor for God existing. If the universe was eternal, it'd be a point against Christianity (and a point for Buddhism - see how this works?)
Some philosophers have argued that anything powerful enough to create the universe is, at very least, Godlike in power. But I suppose we all just just be a computer simulation running on an Apple 2e in some kid's elementary school lunch break, in a higher dimension. Some people even say that Quantization is evidence of this.
You probably meant to say that there's no *valid* arguments, because you wrongly think it is impossible to define what God is, but I'd recommend you get reading. The wikipedia articles are okay, but I'd recommend Peter Kreeft's good list of arguments for and against the existence of God. He does an outstanding job breaking them down and analyzing them for validity.
>>You should realize that atheists bring actual arguments and use logic, not a bunch of stupid excuses that have no chance of being considered logical arguments.
There's logic and valid arguments on both sides, as well as a bunch of emotivism and bad arguments. I'd recommend reading Peter Kreeft's list of arguments on both sides. He goes into pretty comprehensive detail breaking down the arguments for and against on both sides.
Islamic thinkers used pure reason to derive the fact that our universe had to have an origin, and thus that the universe tended to show evidence of God, rather than the opposite... back in the middle ages. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument)
Scientists, especially atheist scientists, used their "faith" that God doesn't exist to try to constantly prove that the universe was eternal. Einstein was guilty of this, and the Big Bang got its name from Hoyle, an atheist scientist, derisively mocking the notion the universe had an origin (because he felt it would strongly imply that God existed).
I'm sure these arguments don't fit into the pretty little preconstructed world you've built for yourself, so please feel free to continue deluding yourself that scientists are the shining beacon of logic in an otherwise inhospitable world.
Religion has, historically speaking, been the greatest force for good our planet has ever seen.
Hitchens is a frothing moron who doesn't know the first thing about what he's talking about - his sole tactic is to sound British and snotty when talking about religion. I've watched several dozens of his debates online, especially with Dinesh D'Souza (who doesn't do an especially good job defending Christianity), and I've yet to see him put together a single cogent argument. Other than, I suppose, the fact that he'll sneer at you if you believe.
>>A core underlying cause of all these problems is hidden authoritarianism.
Oh my science!
Hidden authoritarianism is the secret cause for the battle of the sexes? I must weed this out of my life right this instant, so my wife will never argue with me again!
>>Buying into any religion does away with trust in your own mind and does away with uncorrupted critical thinking.
It sounds like you threw out the religion alongside your braincells. Honestly, I'd love to quote you so I can use you as a counter-strawman on the IIDB whenever they toss out some fundie speaker.
>>It's always simpler to say the universe created itself than to say something else first created itself and later created the universe.
No, it's really not simpler. Our universe has a one-dimensional timeline, which means there's a definite beginning to it.
It makes absolutely no sense to say that our universe created itself, and does makes sense to say it had an origin in something outside of the universe.
This doesn't imply an anthropomorphic God, but a sort of Deistic Creator... much more plausible than "nothing" (which is the atheists' option of choice).
>>Yeah sure, reality is simply a matter of personal preference.
Based on the current science, yeah. It seems more likely the universe had a starting point than it being eternally existing. If you have any counter-evidence, I'd love to see it.
>>Believing in invisible men in the sky that will reward you if your good is on par with believing in leprechauns or wish granting genies. Oddly, it is socially acceptable to admit to only one of those things.
Says the Anonymous Coward, posting on a forum where I guarantee you the strong majority will be atheists replying to my post.
There's several levels of irony and hypocrisy there, but it's 4AM and I have yet more Comicon photos to upload...
And you also get upset when theists call you asshats, am I right? (Do you never wonder why?)
Honestly, I think the arguments for the existence of God are more compelling than the opposite, but doing your dickwad atheist bit isn't a good counterargument.
Dawkins has made being-an-asshole-to-theists his raison d'etre, but it neither makes him right, nor even sound particularly smart. His arguments are laughably bad when he strays outside the area he knows (evolutionary biology) and into a region he knows nothing about (theology). To be fair, though - he's still not as stupid as the Westborough fuckers.
>>To elaborate, if the universe needed to be created by something, and that something was God, then God also needed to be created by something
Only if it is necessary that both the universe and God be created. The universe with its one-dimensional timeline is pretty clear to have had an origin (with the big bang), it's unclear if it is necessary for an entity existing outside of time to be created.
In other words, it's not an especially compelling analogy between the two.
I'm a Christian, and am not embarrassed to admit it. I'm embarrassed by these assholes, though. (Atheists often think that Christian == fundamentalist, which simply isn't true.)
I'm not sure it's more logical to say that the universe created itself than it was created by someone, but to each his own, I guess.
I actually saw them today at the con, holding up a Jesus Is Lord sign, as a bunch of cosplaying executioners paraded around. I didn't know it was the Westborough asshats, or I'd have had words with them, like my pastor did with some similar guys protesting outside the Percy Jackson and the Harry Potter Ripoffs movie.
>>The original deal was that the churches would provide social services so that the government wouldn't need to. In recompense for providing this service, the churches were relieved from taxation. Then they didn't follow through.
They didn't follow through? For most of our country's history they followed through until the government took over those powers.
In some cases, have shut down charitable institutions (like the Catholic Charities) for not following politically correct guidelines.
In both the case of the telcos receiving money and churches "promising service they didn't deliver on" you have a nugget of truth, but the reality is more complicated.
In any event, religions are not taxed because it would be a violation of free religion. Hell, I even think the rule they can't give "politically biased" speeches to be in violation of the constitution, since it allows the IRS to arbitrarily shut down any church they want, if they don't like what they say.
Good point, and that is why it is a good idea to buy a PC with at least a dual core processor.
Beyond two cores, however, it still depends on the application. An example: If the above single-threaded game needs more CPU than the OS and other programs combined, the core the game is running on will limit the overall performance. A second core is more than sufficient to handle the rest. A third, fourth... core would only hang around idle.
Yep, that basically says it all. The dual-core upgrade was huge - you could let a game run on one core without getting preempted by all the background stuff which could run on another core. 4-6 cores are by and large wasted. And since they tend to cause the whole shebang to run at a lower clock frequency, tend to get outperformed by older dual core CPUs.
Re:United States Government Accountability Office?
on
Top Secret America
·
· Score: 1
>>You understand that the Press started being subsidized by the US government in the late 1700s?
If you're talking about reduced rates on the established postal routes, bulk rates for mail hardly constitutes a socialist press.
If you're talking about the government contracting out its printing to private printers (like Benjamin Franklin, who chased those contracts), that's also not a socialist press.
>>Well. There's always the hope that the good capitalists (I have Southwest, Amazon, and Walmart in my list so far... although I'm growing doubtful of Walmart) will always do so much better business that their competitors will be driven out of business and will stop being obstacles.:)
Too big to fail, remember? Big subsidies for airlines if they run into trouble, even total dogs like USAir.
Anyhow, it's nice to know that/. isn't completely full of Socialist fucktards. =)
>>And you can be damn sure that oppressing any people will result in violence in the long run, so I expect nothing good from them.
So the Muslim guy that murdered the director was just... reacting against those oppresive policies? Or the whole Mohammed cartoon thing? Also a reaction to Netherlands' inherent hatred and bias? Give me a break.
>>Amsterdam are far more to the left (the US would probably even classify us as commies).
The EU parliament is, what, 90% left-wing?
That being said, we can protest all we want and our government may even agree, but they can never get the US to stop treating the whole fucking world as their personal playground to do with as they damn well please... So don't pretend like we can actually have any influence of the policy of the US. And don't even begin about smugness, because Americans are the worst of all... Thinking they are the greatest, and this the United Planet of America. We see those dumbasses on TV all the time saying "USA is the greatest most free-est place on earth. I've never even been abroad because all other countries suck. Whooo USA!". Fuck, you don't even know what freedom is.
Sheesh, man. Someone is upset that your empire hasn't been dominant for the last 200 years.
Oddly enough, as much as Americans like to make fun of Europeans as being pussies that can only enjoy their cheese and wine because America protected them during the cold war from following in the footsteps of the Ukraine, Poland, Lithuania, Karelia, Belorus, Georgia, Armenia, and so forth, the only real hatred I ever see flows back the other way.
Slashdot Mirror
>>But you don't do enough to stop these fundamentalist hate-mongers, though. So because you're not actively speaking out against them, you are implicitly supporting them.
Hmm, going on Slashdot (and opening myself to flames from a thousand and one angry atheists) criticizing them doesn't count?
I already mentioned that if I'd known that these were the Westboro guys, I'd have argued with them in person... the sign I saw just said that Jesus is Lord, and I took an ironic photo with it with some women on stage behind them. Let's see if this works:
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash2/hs098.ash2/38217_1513502154929_1155669588_1478801_2568238_n.jpg
If it doesn't, I'll post it some other way. I find it vaguely amusing.
>>It's got to work both ways.
I actually agree with you. I wish that atheists would disown their more nutty and rabid speakers, like Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris (I sort of like Dan Dennet, but he can be just as bad sometimes). As a Christian, I actively speak out against fundamentalists, especially the anti-intellectuals. And I do wish Muslims would speak out more disowning the radicals, but to be fair, a lot of them have, but have just been filtered out by Fox News (because it goes against their screed).
>>Yes, but that wasn't the point. Suppose we accept that this entity exists, what makes Christianity in particular correct?
Nothing. You're absolutely right that it could just as easily be Odin or whoever.
You need different arguments to argue for Christianity in preference to other options. The First Cause argument alone doesn't get you there.
>>>>Religion has, historically speaking, been the greatest force for good our planet has ever seen.
>>[citation needed]
Yay, the ignorant are coming out of the woodwork.
If you haven't ever studied history, and just listened to your fellow atheists bitch about how religion hates sciences and is holding the world back, then you have an excuse for that. Otherwise, sorry. You're an ignoramus.
Pretty much our entire system of natural rights is based on being endowed by their creator (sound familiar), so not even a government can take them away. Contrast this with countries that did not develop with a Christian heritage, and see how far your civil rights go there.
The notion of Universal Charity was really Jesus' revolutionary message, and it really did transform the world, causing more good as a result of it than any other single idea.
Hitchens, by contrast, think that it is the worst thing that has ever happened to the world. This is (in part) why I said he's a frothing moron. He speaks and writes books that are at complete odds with history.
>>Hm? How do you measure qualifications in theology? So far, I haven't been able to discern 'good' theologists from 'bad' ones.
How do you measure qualification in any field of literature analysis - such as Redology, the study of A Dream of Red Mansions (an actual field of study in China)?
Hermeneutics and Exegesis.
You can read more about these topics online.
>>Beware of the spaghetti monster. It is coming to get us all real soon now. Repent while you still can and get some tomato sauce with that if you please.
You know that Dawkins made the argument that religion doesn't really change the way we act? Therefore, eating all the pasta I can won't make me fat. I love being a spaghetti monster atheist!
>>Let's say that we accept the theory that something needed to jumpstart the universe, and that thing does not necessarily have to follow the same rules the universe does (and thus doesn't need a creator of it's own).
Indeed. The First Cause argument is not proof that God exists, merely is a point in favor for God existing. If the universe was eternal, it'd be a point against Christianity (and a point for Buddhism - see how this works?)
Some philosophers have argued that anything powerful enough to create the universe is, at very least, Godlike in power. But I suppose we all just just be a computer simulation running on an Apple 2e in some kid's elementary school lunch break, in a higher dimension. Some people even say that Quantization is evidence of this.
>>You see, there is not a single argument for the existence of God. Not one.
I don't think you meant to say that, but I'll flame you anyway.
There's lots of arguments for the existence of God. More than one, in fact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God#Arguments_for_the_existence_of_God
You probably meant to say that there's no *valid* arguments, because you wrongly think it is impossible to define what God is, but I'd recommend you get reading. The wikipedia articles are okay, but I'd recommend Peter Kreeft's good list of arguments for and against the existence of God. He does an outstanding job breaking them down and analyzing them for validity.
^scientists are the^atheist scientists are the^
4:24AM is not the best time to be trying to write, sigh...
>>You should realize that atheists bring actual arguments and use logic, not a bunch of stupid excuses that have no chance of being considered logical arguments.
There's logic and valid arguments on both sides, as well as a bunch of emotivism and bad arguments. I'd recommend reading Peter Kreeft's list of arguments on both sides. He goes into pretty comprehensive detail breaking down the arguments for and against on both sides.
Islamic thinkers used pure reason to derive the fact that our universe had to have an origin, and thus that the universe tended to show evidence of God, rather than the opposite... back in the middle ages. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument)
Scientists, especially atheist scientists, used their "faith" that God doesn't exist to try to constantly prove that the universe was eternal. Einstein was guilty of this, and the Big Bang got its name from Hoyle, an atheist scientist, derisively mocking the notion the universe had an origin (because he felt it would strongly imply that God existed).
I'm sure these arguments don't fit into the pretty little preconstructed world you've built for yourself, so please feel free to continue deluding yourself that scientists are the shining beacon of logic in an otherwise inhospitable world.
>>Religion needs put down, hard.
Religion has, historically speaking, been the greatest force for good our planet has ever seen.
Hitchens is a frothing moron who doesn't know the first thing about what he's talking about - his sole tactic is to sound British and snotty when talking about religion. I've watched several dozens of his debates online, especially with Dinesh D'Souza (who doesn't do an especially good job defending Christianity), and I've yet to see him put together a single cogent argument. Other than, I suppose, the fact that he'll sneer at you if you believe.
>>A core underlying cause of all these problems is hidden authoritarianism.
Oh my science!
Hidden authoritarianism is the secret cause for the battle of the sexes? I must weed this out of my life right this instant, so my wife will never argue with me again!
>>Buying into any religion does away with trust in your own mind and does away with uncorrupted critical thinking.
It sounds like you threw out the religion alongside your braincells. Honestly, I'd love to quote you so I can use you as a counter-strawman on the IIDB whenever they toss out some fundie speaker.
>>It's always simpler to say the universe created itself than to say something else first created itself and later created the universe.
No, it's really not simpler. Our universe has a one-dimensional timeline, which means there's a definite beginning to it.
It makes absolutely no sense to say that our universe created itself, and does makes sense to say it had an origin in something outside of the universe.
This doesn't imply an anthropomorphic God, but a sort of Deistic Creator... much more plausible than "nothing" (which is the atheists' option of choice).
>>Yeah sure, reality is simply a matter of personal preference.
Based on the current science, yeah. It seems more likely the universe had a starting point than it being eternally existing. If you have any counter-evidence, I'd love to see it.
>>Believing in invisible men in the sky that will reward you if your good is on par with believing in leprechauns or wish granting genies. Oddly, it is socially acceptable to admit to only one of those things.
Says the Anonymous Coward, posting on a forum where I guarantee you the strong majority will be atheists replying to my post.
There's several levels of irony and hypocrisy there, but it's 4AM and I have yet more Comicon photos to upload...
>>However, we do think you are all delusional.
And you also get upset when theists call you asshats, am I right? (Do you never wonder why?)
Honestly, I think the arguments for the existence of God are more compelling than the opposite, but doing your dickwad atheist bit isn't a good counterargument.
Dawkins has made being-an-asshole-to-theists his raison d'etre, but it neither makes him right, nor even sound particularly smart. His arguments are laughably bad when he strays outside the area he knows (evolutionary biology) and into a region he knows nothing about (theology). To be fair, though - he's still not as stupid as the Westborough fuckers.
>>To elaborate, if the universe needed to be created by something, and that something was God, then God also needed to be created by something
Only if it is necessary that both the universe and God be created. The universe with its one-dimensional timeline is pretty clear to have had an origin (with the big bang), it's unclear if it is necessary for an entity existing outside of time to be created.
In other words, it's not an especially compelling analogy between the two.
I'm a Christian, and am not embarrassed to admit it. I'm embarrassed by these assholes, though. (Atheists often think that Christian == fundamentalist, which simply isn't true.)
I'm not sure it's more logical to say that the universe created itself than it was created by someone, but to each his own, I guess.
I actually saw them today at the con, holding up a Jesus Is Lord sign, as a bunch of cosplaying executioners paraded around. I didn't know it was the Westborough asshats, or I'd have had words with them, like my pastor did with some similar guys protesting outside the Percy Jackson and the Harry Potter Ripoffs movie.
>>The original deal was that the churches would provide social services so that the government wouldn't need to. In recompense for providing this service, the churches were relieved from taxation. Then they didn't follow through.
They didn't follow through? For most of our country's history they followed through until the government took over those powers.
In some cases, have shut down charitable institutions (like the Catholic Charities) for not following politically correct guidelines.
In both the case of the telcos receiving money and churches "promising service they didn't deliver on" you have a nugget of truth, but the reality is more complicated.
In any event, religions are not taxed because it would be a violation of free religion. Hell, I even think the rule they can't give "politically biased" speeches to be in violation of the constitution, since it allows the IRS to arbitrarily shut down any church they want, if they don't like what they say.
Ah, it wouldn't be Slashdot without yet another braindead attack on religion.
>>. If those restrictions were respected and enforced, there wouldn't really be that problem.
Nope. People would still take the bags through security and gate check them, since gate checking is free, but checked luggage costs $$. =)
Yep, that basically says it all. The dual-core upgrade was huge - you could let a game run on one core without getting preempted by all the background stuff which could run on another core. 4-6 cores are by and large wasted. And since they tend to cause the whole shebang to run at a lower clock frequency, tend to get outperformed by older dual core CPUs.
>>You understand that the Press started being subsidized by the US government in the late 1700s?
If you're talking about reduced rates on the established postal routes, bulk rates for mail hardly constitutes a socialist press.
If you're talking about the government contracting out its printing to private printers (like Benjamin Franklin, who chased those contracts), that's also not a socialist press.
>>Well. There's always the hope that the good capitalists (I have Southwest, Amazon, and Walmart in my list so far ... although I'm growing doubtful of Walmart) will always do so much better business that their competitors will be driven out of business and will stop being obstacles. :)
Too big to fail, remember? Big subsidies for airlines if they run into trouble, even total dogs like USAir.
Anyhow, it's nice to know that /. isn't completely full of Socialist fucktards. =)
>>I don't find huge competing bureaucracies very good at being effective as intelligence organizations
Or admitting that even with all the information in the world, they still can't stop a person from picking up a rock and throwing it through a window.
The fact that they pretend that they can - but just need more funding in order to do so - is telling.
>>And you can be damn sure that oppressing any people will result in violence in the long run, so I expect nothing good from them.
So the Muslim guy that murdered the director was just... reacting against those oppresive policies? Or the whole Mohammed cartoon thing? Also a reaction to Netherlands' inherent hatred and bias? Give me a break.
>>Amsterdam are far more to the left (the US would probably even classify us as commies).
The EU parliament is, what, 90% left-wing?
Sheesh, man. Someone is upset that your empire hasn't been dominant for the last 200 years.
Oddly enough, as much as Americans like to make fun of Europeans as being pussies that can only enjoy their cheese and wine because America protected them during the cold war from following in the footsteps of the Ukraine, Poland, Lithuania, Karelia, Belorus, Georgia, Armenia, and so forth, the only real hatred I ever see flows back the other way.