Software test engineer was my first technology job, so I was pretty junior. Your responsibilities might be more extensive if you have more experience. That said, my responsibilities included:
Overseeing the build process
Maintain build scripts/makefiles, manage software repositories
Grabbing the latest code from all modules and building from source
If the software didn't build properly, identify the source of the problem and (if I could) fix it, otherwise provide feedback to the responsible developer
Integration testing
Create and maintain test environments and scripts
Once the software was built, test major functionality to ensure that new code didn't break anything
Test whatever functions had been modified (new features, bug fixes, etc.)
Debug any issues and (if I could) fix them, otherwise provide feedback to the responsible developer(s).
Troubleshooting
Reproduce bugs that had been escalated to the dev team
Debug the issue and identify the source
Fix the bug (if I could), otherwise provide feedback to the responsible developer(s).
Software Releases
Build release versions (Beta and production) for distribution to customers and manufacturing
Regression test release versions
Other Stuff
Create test reports
manage bug tracking
Set up dev environments for the developers
Design and set up test beds for testing and troubleshooting
Developers were responsible for unit testing their code before releasing it to me for Integration. That may or may not be part of the job you're looking at.
It's fairly clear that engineering students likely have the skills to comb the Interwebs for information. Instead of giving tests that might require it, give an open book exam and make sure that all the references they need are in the materials allowed during the test.
This will test the students' ability to identify what information they need to solve the problem, without giving them access to information that could allow them to cheat. Creating a test that requires access to the Internet to gather the information required to take the test is laziness on the part of the test creator, IMHO.
Actually, they don't. Yet. They may not. The case you cite (despite the title and TFS), is still pending before the courts. No decision has been reached, the judge just declined to put ReDigi out of business without a trial.
There has been no definitive ruling by the courts in this litigation. The judge only denied Capitol Records request for a preliminary injunction against ReDigi to force them to cease operations while the litigation proceeds. That, most likely would have forced ReDigi out of business, which may well have been what the judge was thinking about. We won't have any real answers about this until after a trial and, presumably, the inevitable appeals.
LOL! Are you serious? A creed followed by an insult! Let all now behold: The cool, the reasonable, the very irreligious atheist!
I rest my case.
I guess tongue-in-cheek doesn't translate too well for you. However, I was wrong. The wording of my post incorrectly implied that there was a connection between my atheism and my definition of truth. There is none. I should have said: "reality" is the story our brain tells us based on sensory input, past experience and our own biases. I am an atheist. In addition, I accept that the only "truth" is that which can be expressed in mathematical terms that exactly mirror multiple independent observations. In summary, suck it twice, jerk!
Why treat belief in god different than anything else? And anyway last time I checked Zeus, Thor and Odin are gods and I am certainly an atheist about their existence, I suspect you are too - it is just a question of whether you deny the existence of all gods or just a subset, and if it is a subset why that subset and not some other? But the broader point is why do we have to be agnostic about god and suspend judgement when for every other fairy tale, monster or nonsense statement we are comfortable saying that does not exist or that is not true based on the knowledge we have available?
Please, let me rephrase
I should have said
You're either an atheist (and accept the idea that "god" or "gods," whatever that or those might be defined as, does not exist) or you're not an Atheist.
Does that clear things up for you?
As to your "broader" point, you (or I for that matter) don't "have" to suspend judgement about anything. Go ahead and judge. I give you my personal permission, whatever that's worth. I, for one, welcome our new robotic overlords.:)
He was a criminal though. He committed a crime. He broke the law.
They've admitted it was terribly wrong to punish him, but claiming that he didn't break the law as written would require revising history.
Pardons remove the blemish of a conviction. They do not change what actually happened, nor to they change any laws.
It's really not a belief system either. A quick dictionary check shows a belief system is the framework upon which beliefs are based. Most atheists would identify their belief system as rational skepticism or humanism or more rarely something semi-religious like Buddhism. Atheism tends to be an artifact of the belief system, rather than the belief system itself.
The term is a response to the typical expectation of religious belief in society, not a whole-cloth concept in and of itself. This kind of equivocation helps no one.
Exactly. Just to clarify the point for those who are ESL or lack adequate reading comprehension skills, atheism is acceptance of the idea that "god" or "gods" (whatever those words mean) do not exist. Period. End of sentence. No other information can be ascertained about an individual based on the statement "I am an atheist."
You're missing the point. It was said that atheism has no belief system when in fact it does; there is even an active choice what (and what not) to believe in.
Those who are self-declared atheists choose to believe that life, the universe, and everything came into existence by unintelligent means. That is a belief system, and it is shared by people who identify with atheism.
BZZZZT Wrong. atheism makes no claims as to the origin of the universe. Atheism is not a belief system. It is acceptance of the idea that "god" or "gods" do not exist. atheism has no other ideas or concepts. There are those who take that one idea and attempt to make connections with other ideas, but those other ideas are not atheism.
Furthermore, some atheists also congregate with other atheists, and it is inevitable that culture sharing will occur and that they will come to also share a set of common moral values (even if they deny absolute truth or the eternal nature of these values).
I congregate with other residents of my apartment building (we have no choice, we live inside the same structure). We even talk to each other now and again -- sharing culture even. I am quite sure, however, that my moral values differ significantly from many of the other residents. I also strongly suspect that my neighbors and I share much more in the way of culture and worldview than do the set of atheists and myself.
Additionally, there is no such thing as shared moral values.Each individual must make their own moral choices. Those choices may be colored by the ideas of others, but each moral choice is individual, so "common moral values" is a convenient fiction with no basis in reality.
There doesn't need to be 100% agreement (or anything approaching that), in the same way that there does not exist a complete consensus among religious non-atheists on morality, but there is, without a doubt, moral sharing among a significant portion of atheists.
See the above point. In addition, "atheists" are not some monolithic group. In my experience, atheists tend more toward being non-joiners as they (as their views exposit) tend to be independent thinkers who are less likely to have their core values be influenced by others.
So, to sum up: Shared belief system, shared culture, shared moral values... atheism is definitely a religion. Even if an atheist does not congregate or explicitly share these things, it would be like a christian who only believes in his heart and doesn't associate with any organized church. Both are practicing unorganized religion, and it makes no sense to call one religious and the other not.
I understand that a lot of atheists like to think that they are enlightened and above religion (that dirty word), but logic and reason, ironically, are not on their side in this. Ironic because logic and reason (since they deny revelation) are usually important facets of the doctrine of Atheism.
You have attempted to attribute habits and behaviors of religious groups to a set individuals who have no other commonality other than acceptance of a single concept. There is no doctrine, no dogma, no revealed truths and no conformity among atheists. In fact atheism has no shared culture at all. You are completely and unreservedly wrong. I share this with you not in an attempt to denigrate or belittle you, but to try to help you understand. I suspect my efforts will fail, but I choose to try anyway. I hope that one day you may be able to see the universe from the perspective of others. I think you'll find yourself the richer for it.
The existence of religion (not the beliefs underlying them) on the other hand is provable, but in thousands of years of human history, not one person has succeeded in proving the existence of any deity. Or in hundreds of years of the scientific method, if you prefer, since apparently proving the existence of God/gods to other people was a lot easier until the scientific method came along: no major world religion has been founded in the scientific age.
There is nothing rational about being an atheist, so if you want to talk about a sceptical view of religion (and atheism) you would be better off describing yourself or others as agnostics.
Ding ding ding, we have a winner, lots of people are atheists about a lot of things, like the easter bunny, Thor, Zeus, Odin and Santa. If you have no evidence for the existence of something, most people will not believe in it and are quite comforable with saying it does not exist (elves, unicorns, witches) - However we are supposed to give religion a special place, even though we have no evidence for the Judeo Christian God, we are supposed to suspend judgement and be an "agnosistic" instead of an atheist - this is how the relgious even make it difficult to call a spade a spade, they call you closed minded when you treat their god just like any other mythical creature or other god for unpopular religions - nobody in the US would give you a hard time about being an atheist about the existiance of Vishnu but the Judeo Christian god - you have to be an agnostic, how do you know he doesn't exist! Note how the burden of proof changes from the believers to non-believers for popular religions
You clearly misunderstand Atheism You can't be Atheistic "about" something. You're either an atheist (and accept the idea that "god," whatever that might be defined as, does not exist) or you're not an Atheist. Atheism is not a synonym for non-belief.
Actually, the morals of Atheists (and most Theists) do no come from the doctrines of their Atheism,
Absolutely, since the "doctrines" (to use your word, even though it doesn't apply in this case) of Atheism is that there is no such thing as "god." Period.
So, the main open question is, does Atheism "relate humanity to sprituality?"
Atheism most decidedly DOES relate humanity to spirituality. Specifically, Atheism includes a belief that humanity created spirituality to serve its own interests. This is not the relation proposed by most religions, but Atheism isn't most religions.
I disagree. Atheism does not relate *anything* to spirituality. Atheism is simply acceptance of the idea that there is no "god." That does not preclude spirituality by any stretch of the imagination.
I place "god" in quotes above because, even among theists, there is little agreement as to what "god" (or "gods") is (are).
Atheism: no. There is no spiritual or moral component of atheism.
You're a bloody ignorant idiot.
Here's the moral component: _I_ am the highest authority to judge what I am doing. Therefore _I_ am the one who is solely responsible for living my life the right way. There is only one life, only one chance of doing it right. I won't come back to fix what I'm doing wrong, so _I_ intend to do things right the first time. If Christians or Muslims hide behind their "religion" to justify whatever evil they do, _I_ can't do that. I can't blame anything on a higher authority because _I_ am the highest authority for myself.
Wrong! Thanks for playing. The correct answer is:
atheism [ey-thee-iz-uhm]
noun
1.the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Got another one? Sure, Eric Hoffer's perfectly valid observation that you glibly ignored. Atheists wrongly point to "religion" in order to excuse their own very similar quality of thinking: whatever process (e.g. "reason") they employ to arrive at a conclusion leaves them with utter certainty in their views. Hence the True Believer. The essence of religion, the devotion and certainty, is common to the theistic and atheistic alike. The atheists AND theists both want to believe that the object and content of the belief is all that matters (orthodoxy!). Not one bit. It is the quality of the belief and nothing more that make many atheists among the most religious people to walk the earth today. I use the term generally, and am perfectly justified as I am not nearly the first to do so.
"reality" is the story our brain tells us based on sensory input, past experience and our own biases. As an atheist, I accept that the only "truth" is that which can be expressed in mathematical terms that exactly mirror multiple independent observations. In summary, suck it, jerk!
I'd go so far as to say that most people determine their own moral code, even if they attribute it to their religious teachings
Killing my mods on this thread to reply here. I hope y'all appreciate it.
I'd go even farther. I'd say that there is no such thing as morality when applied to groups. Groups are inherently amoral. Only individuals can have morality. That morality can (and often does) correspond to tenets of conduct espoused by group(s) that the individual is associated with. However, each individual must make their own decisions as to what is moral and what is not moral, regardless of the views or tenets of any particular group or, for that matter, the moral choices made by other individuals.
All the same, the responsibility is all on you when it comes to your child(ren). If you expect that others will bend to your will just because it makes your job as a parent easier, that's selfish, IMHO.
So, if all I want to make my job as a parent easier is some basic decorum in the public library, a standard that you agree too, I'm not sure what your point is.
While we both agree that decorum at the library is desirable, others, apparently, do not. Those folks, who are, in our estimation, obnoxious jerks are still entitled to view "protected expression." that may annoy us, but it is what it is. When I say "selfish," I mean that said obnoxious jerks are demanding that we put their desires above that of others in a rigid and uncompromising way. If (note the *if* here) you do the same by demanding that others put your desires (in this case, not having your children put in the position of seeing something that you deem inappropriate for them) ahead of their own in a similar rigid and uncompromising way (i.e., not allowing them to view materials *provided by the library in the way prescribed by the library*), that can also be construed as selfish, no?
I hope that gives you a better understanding of where I'm coming from. My apologies if I wasn't clear enough in previous posts.
We're talking about a library here. Part of the way I do my job as a parent and control what they're exposed to is by choosing where I bring them. Given that we both agree that a public showing of 'two girls, one cup' shouldn't occur at a public library, I think we're really on the same page here.
I mean, I don't want to see 'TGOC' at the library, and you don't, and I don't want my kids to see it either. Does saying it that make you feel better?
I hear you. But whether you and I agree is immaterial. That library makes these materials available and prescribes how those materials are to be consumed. If we don't like those policies, we can address them with the library. The library apparently views this as a free speech issue. You view it as a decorum issue and use the "think of the children!" trope as your primary argument (mostly, it appears, because that's what's important to you.). I'm a pretty hardcore free speech guy, so I do understand and support the librarian's point of view, even if I find the material objectionable in those circumstances. That said, I dislike obnoxious jerks too, so while I do support free speech and the librarian's call WRT this issue, I think someone needs to smack that asshole upside the head.
So, insisting on some decorum in a library is the same as watching porno in a library?
Not at all. Decorum is an important lubricant to our society. But that doesn't make it mandatory. I'll agree with you 100% that the rude jackass who insists on viewing porn in full view of everyone is sorely lacking in decorum (I have been informed by area residents that Seattle Public Library computers all have privacy screens which make the images on screens only visible if you're looking over the user's shoulder). However, keeping *your* kid from seeing something *you* don't want them to see is *your* responsibility, not some guy who
needs to rub his crank through his pants at the library
.
That said, consideration and empathy are key components of a civil society. Unfortunately, Some folks are jerks. All the same, the responsibility is all on you when it comes to your child(ren). If you expect that others will bend to your will just because it makes your job as a parent easier, that's selfish, IMHO.
BTW, we have *afirmative* rights based on the constitution. That is, the right to do, say or be "stuff". We do not have rights to be free *from* that same "stuff" As Justice Holmes famously said, "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."
I'm sorry that reality doesn't match up with your preconceived notions. That's a shame. Have a lovely day!
Hey, I'm with you on not being uptight about sex, but I want to discuss it in a manner that I think matches what I decide my children are capable of grasping. I don't want to go from 'zero' to 'two girls one cup' because some guy needs to rub his crank through his pants at the library, and my kid saw it.
Then be responsible for your kids. Don't try to force others to be responsible for them too. When you do that, you're no better than the jackass who's watching porn in the middle of the library and refuses to move someplace else when asked. Both are extremely selfish acts.
He doesn't have a constitutional right not to be offended - but neither do you have a constitutional right to flaunt the values of the society you're a part of and expect there to be no consequences.
You're absolutely right. We should have hung those rabble-rousing terrorists when they first starting flouting the values of 18th century British society. Death to Washington! Death To Jefferson! Burn Franklin at the stake!
So when I pick my six-year-old daughter up at the library and she tells me what she saw when she was there, I should give her the old "it was wrong of you to be offended" lecture? Or maybe I should explain to her how fortunate she is to live in a society where the Constitution gives that man the right to watch those movies at the library.
As the parent of a six year-old (or any minor child), it is *your* responsibility to control what she can or can't see. If you don't like some of the content that is provided in the library and you're concerned that she might be exposed to that content, then you need to stay with her in the library to make sure she doesn't see that content.
It's the old saw, "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."
You have the right to police what your minor daughter sees and hears, but your right to do so ends when you abridge the rights of others. Stop demanding that others take on *your* responsibilities. That's just as selfish as the jerk who watches porn in the middle of the library and refuses to move when asked to be considerate.
Slashdot Mirror
It sounds to me like you were a Release Engineer who also did testing. You should have asked for more money.
Yeah. I thought the $140,000 I was getting back in '92 was a little light. Thanks for the suggestion.
Software test engineer was my first technology job, so I was pretty junior. Your responsibilities might be more extensive if you have more experience. That said, my responsibilities included:
Overseeing the build process
Maintain build scripts/makefiles, manage software repositories
Grabbing the latest code from all modules and building from source
If the software didn't build properly, identify the source of the problem and (if I could) fix it, otherwise provide feedback to the responsible developer
Integration testing
Create and maintain test environments and scripts
Once the software was built, test major functionality to ensure that new code didn't break anything
Test whatever functions had been modified (new features, bug fixes, etc.)
Debug any issues and (if I could) fix them, otherwise provide feedback to the responsible developer(s).
Troubleshooting
Reproduce bugs that had been escalated to the dev team
Debug the issue and identify the source
Fix the bug (if I could), otherwise provide feedback to the responsible developer(s).
Software Releases
Build release versions (Beta and production) for distribution to customers and manufacturing
Regression test release versions
Other Stuff
Create test reports
manage bug tracking
Set up dev environments for the developers
Design and set up test beds for testing and troubleshooting
Developers were responsible for unit testing their code before releasing it to me for Integration. That may or may not be part of the job you're looking at.
HTHAL
It's fairly clear that engineering students likely have the skills to comb the Interwebs for information. Instead of giving tests that might require it, give an open book exam and make sure that all the references they need are in the materials allowed during the test.
This will test the students' ability to identify what information they need to solve the problem, without giving them access to information that could allow them to cheat. Creating a test that requires access to the Internet to gather the information required to take the test is laziness on the part of the test creator, IMHO.
Courts disagree with you: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/02/08/2123257/selling-used-mp3s-found-legal-in-america
Actually, they don't. Yet. They may not. The case you cite (despite the title and TFS), is still pending before the courts. No decision has been reached, the judge just declined to put ReDigi out of business without a trial.
...or license it to you?
That would be one question. I thought it was a sale as it came up in the ReDigi case recently
And that litigation is still pending. So, unfortunately, no answers there...yet
Oh, right, I forgot: this is the U.S., where your politicians can be bought and paid for.
At least we have honest politicians here in the US. They *stay* bribed, at least for the most part.
There has been no definitive ruling by the courts in this litigation. The judge only denied Capitol Records request for a preliminary injunction against ReDigi to force them to cease operations while the litigation proceeds. That, most likely would have forced ReDigi out of business, which may well have been what the judge was thinking about. We won't have any real answers about this until after a trial and, presumably, the inevitable appeals.
More Info here and here
In summary, suck it, jerk!
LOL! Are you serious? A creed followed by an insult! Let all now behold: The cool, the reasonable, the very irreligious atheist!
I rest my case.
I guess tongue-in-cheek doesn't translate too well for you. However, I was wrong. The wording of my post incorrectly implied that there was a connection between my atheism and my definition of truth. There is none. I should have said:
"reality" is the story our brain tells us based on sensory input, past experience and our own biases. I am an atheist. In addition, I accept that the only "truth" is that which can be expressed in mathematical terms that exactly mirror multiple independent observations. In summary, suck it twice, jerk!
I hope that clarifies things for you.
Why treat belief in god different than anything else? And anyway last time I checked Zeus, Thor and Odin are gods and I am certainly an atheist about their existence, I suspect you are too - it is just a question of whether you deny the existence of all gods or just a subset, and if it is a subset why that subset and not some other? But the broader point is why do we have to be agnostic about god and suspend judgement when for every other fairy tale, monster or nonsense statement we are comfortable saying that does not exist or that is not true based on the knowledge we have available?
Please, let me rephrase
I should have said
You're either an atheist (and accept the idea that "god" or "gods," whatever that or those might be defined as, does not exist) or you're not an Atheist.
Does that clear things up for you?
As to your "broader" point, you (or I for that matter) don't "have" to suspend judgement about anything. Go ahead and judge. I give you my personal permission, whatever that's worth. I, for one, welcome our new robotic overlords. :)
He was a criminal though. He committed a crime. He broke the law. They've admitted it was terribly wrong to punish him, but claiming that he didn't break the law as written would require revising history.
Pardons remove the blemish of a conviction. They do not change what actually happened, nor to they change any laws.
It's really not a belief system either. A quick dictionary check shows a belief system is the framework upon which beliefs are based. Most atheists would identify their belief system as rational skepticism or humanism or more rarely something semi-religious like Buddhism. Atheism tends to be an artifact of the belief system, rather than the belief system itself.
The term is a response to the typical expectation of religious belief in society, not a whole-cloth concept in and of itself. This kind of equivocation helps no one.
Exactly. Just to clarify the point for those who are ESL or lack adequate reading comprehension skills, atheism is acceptance of the idea that "god" or "gods" (whatever those words mean) do not exist. Period. End of sentence. No other information can be ascertained about an individual based on the statement "I am an atheist."
You're missing the point. It was said that atheism has no belief system when in fact it does; there is even an active choice what (and what not) to believe in.
Those who are self-declared atheists choose to believe that life, the universe, and everything came into existence by unintelligent means. That is a belief system, and it is shared by people who identify with atheism.
BZZZZT Wrong. atheism makes no claims as to the origin of the universe. Atheism is not a belief system. It is acceptance of the idea that "god" or "gods" do not exist. atheism has no other ideas or concepts. There are those who take that one idea and attempt to make connections with other ideas, but those other ideas are not atheism.
Furthermore, some atheists also congregate with other atheists, and it is inevitable that culture sharing will occur and that they will come to also share a set of common moral values (even if they deny absolute truth or the eternal nature of these values).
I congregate with other residents of my apartment building (we have no choice, we live inside the same structure). We even talk to each other now and again -- sharing culture even. I am quite sure, however, that my moral values differ significantly from many of the other residents. I also strongly suspect that my neighbors and I share much more in the way of culture and worldview than do the set of atheists and myself.
Additionally, there is no such thing as shared moral values.Each individual must make their own moral choices. Those choices may be colored by the ideas of others, but each moral choice is individual, so "common moral values" is a convenient fiction with no basis in reality.
There doesn't need to be 100% agreement (or anything approaching that), in the same way that there does not exist a complete consensus among religious non-atheists on morality, but there is, without a doubt, moral sharing among a significant portion of atheists.
See the above point. In addition, "atheists" are not some monolithic group. In my experience, atheists tend more toward being non-joiners as they (as their views exposit) tend to be independent thinkers who are less likely to have their core values be influenced by others.
So, to sum up: Shared belief system, shared culture, shared moral values... atheism is definitely a religion. Even if an atheist does not congregate or explicitly share these things, it would be like a christian who only believes in his heart and doesn't associate with any organized church. Both are practicing unorganized religion, and it makes no sense to call one religious and the other not. I understand that a lot of atheists like to think that they are enlightened and above religion (that dirty word), but logic and reason, ironically, are not on their side in this. Ironic because logic and reason (since they deny revelation) are usually important facets of the doctrine of Atheism.
You have attempted to attribute habits and behaviors of religious groups to a set individuals who have no other commonality other than acceptance of a single concept. There is no doctrine, no dogma, no revealed truths and no conformity among atheists. In fact atheism has no shared culture at all. You are completely and unreservedly wrong. I share this with you not in an attempt to denigrate or belittle you, but to try to help you understand. I suspect my efforts will fail, but I choose to try anyway. I hope that one day you may be able to see the universe from the perspective of others. I think you'll find yourself the richer for it.
The existence of religion (not the beliefs underlying them) on the other hand is provable, but in thousands of years of human history, not one person has succeeded in proving the existence of any deity. Or in hundreds of years of the scientific method, if you prefer, since apparently proving the existence of God/gods to other people was a lot easier until the scientific method came along: no major world religion has been founded in the scientific age.
There is nothing rational about being an atheist, so if you want to talk about a sceptical view of religion (and atheism) you would be better off describing yourself or others as agnostics.
There. FTFY.
Ding ding ding, we have a winner, lots of people are atheists about a lot of things, like the easter bunny, Thor, Zeus, Odin and Santa. If you have no evidence for the existence of something, most people will not believe in it and are quite comforable with saying it does not exist (elves, unicorns, witches) - However we are supposed to give religion a special place, even though we have no evidence for the Judeo Christian God, we are supposed to suspend judgement and be an "agnosistic" instead of an atheist - this is how the relgious even make it difficult to call a spade a spade, they call you closed minded when you treat their god just like any other mythical creature or other god for unpopular religions - nobody in the US would give you a hard time about being an atheist about the existiance of Vishnu but the Judeo Christian god - you have to be an agnostic, how do you know he doesn't exist! Note how the burden of proof changes from the believers to non-believers for popular religions
You clearly misunderstand Atheism You can't be Atheistic "about" something. You're either an atheist (and accept the idea that "god," whatever that might be defined as, does not exist) or you're not an Atheist. Atheism is not a synonym for non-belief.
Actually, the morals of Atheists (and most Theists) do no come from the doctrines of their Atheism,
Absolutely, since the "doctrines" (to use your word, even though it doesn't apply in this case) of Atheism is that there is no such thing as "god." Period.
So, the main open question is, does Atheism "relate humanity to sprituality?" Atheism most decidedly DOES relate humanity to spirituality. Specifically, Atheism includes a belief that humanity created spirituality to serve its own interests. This is not the relation proposed by most religions, but Atheism isn't most religions.
I disagree. Atheism does not relate *anything* to spirituality. Atheism is simply acceptance of the idea that there is no "god." That does not preclude spirituality by any stretch of the imagination.
I place "god" in quotes above because, even among theists, there is little agreement as to what "god" (or "gods") is (are).
Atheism: no. There is no spiritual or moral component of atheism.
You're a bloody ignorant idiot. Here's the moral component: _I_ am the highest authority to judge what I am doing. Therefore _I_ am the one who is solely responsible for living my life the right way. There is only one life, only one chance of doing it right. I won't come back to fix what I'm doing wrong, so _I_ intend to do things right the first time. If Christians or Muslims hide behind their "religion" to justify whatever evil they do, _I_ can't do that. I can't blame anything on a higher authority because _I_ am the highest authority for myself.
Wrong! Thanks for playing. The correct answer is:
atheism [ey-thee-iz-uhm]
noun
1.the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism
Got another one? Sure, Eric Hoffer's perfectly valid observation that you glibly ignored. Atheists wrongly point to "religion" in order to excuse their own very similar quality of thinking: whatever process (e.g. "reason") they employ to arrive at a conclusion leaves them with utter certainty in their views. Hence the True Believer. The essence of religion, the devotion and certainty, is common to the theistic and atheistic alike. The atheists AND theists both want to believe that the object and content of the belief is all that matters (orthodoxy!). Not one bit. It is the quality of the belief and nothing more that make many atheists among the most religious people to walk the earth today. I use the term generally, and am perfectly justified as I am not nearly the first to do so.
"reality" is the story our brain tells us based on sensory input, past experience and our own biases. As an atheist, I accept that the only "truth" is that which can be expressed in mathematical terms that exactly mirror multiple independent observations. In summary, suck it, jerk!
I'd go so far as to say that most people determine their own moral code, even if they attribute it to their religious teachings
Killing my mods on this thread to reply here. I hope y'all appreciate it.
I'd go even farther. I'd say that there is no such thing as morality when applied to groups. Groups are inherently amoral. Only individuals can have morality. That morality can (and often does) correspond to tenets of conduct espoused by group(s) that the individual is associated with. However, each individual must make their own decisions as to what is moral and what is not moral, regardless of the views or tenets of any particular group or, for that matter, the moral choices made by other individuals.
So, if all I want to make my job as a parent easier is some basic decorum in the public library, a standard that you agree too, I'm not sure what your point is.
While we both agree that decorum at the library is desirable, others, apparently, do not. Those folks, who are, in our estimation, obnoxious jerks are still entitled to view "protected expression." that may annoy us, but it is what it is. When I say "selfish," I mean that said obnoxious jerks are demanding that we put their desires above that of others in a rigid and uncompromising way. If (note the *if* here) you do the same by demanding that others put your desires (in this case, not having your children put in the position of seeing something that you deem inappropriate for them) ahead of their own in a similar rigid and uncompromising way (i.e., not allowing them to view materials *provided by the library in the way prescribed by the library*), that can also be construed as selfish, no?
I hope that gives you a better understanding of where I'm coming from. My apologies if I wasn't clear enough in previous posts.
We're talking about a library here. Part of the way I do my job as a parent and control what they're exposed to is by choosing where I bring them. Given that we both agree that a public showing of 'two girls, one cup' shouldn't occur at a public library, I think we're really on the same page here.
I mean, I don't want to see 'TGOC' at the library, and you don't, and I don't want my kids to see it either. Does saying it that make you feel better?
I hear you. But whether you and I agree is immaterial. That library makes these materials available and prescribes how those materials are to be consumed. If we don't like those policies, we can address them with the library. The library apparently views this as a free speech issue. You view it as a decorum issue and use the "think of the children!" trope as your primary argument (mostly, it appears, because that's what's important to you.). I'm a pretty hardcore free speech guy, so I do understand and support the librarian's point of view, even if I find the material objectionable in those circumstances. That said, I dislike obnoxious jerks too, so while I do support free speech and the librarian's call WRT this issue, I think someone needs to smack that asshole upside the head.
So, insisting on some decorum in a library is the same as watching porno in a library?
Not at all. Decorum is an important lubricant to our society. But that doesn't make it mandatory. I'll agree with you 100% that the rude jackass who insists on viewing porn in full view of everyone is sorely lacking in decorum (I have been informed by area residents that Seattle Public Library computers all have privacy screens which make the images on screens only visible if you're looking over the user's shoulder). However, keeping *your* kid from seeing something *you* don't want them to see is *your* responsibility, not some guy who
needs to rub his crank through his pants at the library
.
That said, consideration and empathy are key components of a civil society. Unfortunately, Some folks are jerks. All the same, the responsibility is all on you when it comes to your child(ren). If you expect that others will bend to your will just because it makes your job as a parent easier, that's selfish, IMHO.
"... the U.S. Supreme Court disagrees with you." So you say. Now, if you would so kindly provide a cite to the relevant decision(s)?
Since you asked so nicely:
Miller v. California.
BTW, we have *afirmative* rights based on the constitution. That is, the right to do, say or be "stuff". We do not have rights to be free *from* that same "stuff" As Justice Holmes famously said, "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." I'm sorry that reality doesn't match up with your preconceived notions. That's a shame. Have a lovely day!
Hey, I'm with you on not being uptight about sex, but I want to discuss it in a manner that I think matches what I decide my children are capable of grasping. I don't want to go from 'zero' to 'two girls one cup' because some guy needs to rub his crank through his pants at the library, and my kid saw it.
Then be responsible for your kids. Don't try to force others to be responsible for them too. When you do that, you're no better than the jackass who's watching porn in the middle of the library and refuses to move someplace else when asked. Both are extremely selfish acts.
He doesn't have a constitutional right not to be offended - but neither do you have a constitutional right to flaunt the values of the society you're a part of and expect there to be no consequences.
You're absolutely right. We should have hung those rabble-rousing terrorists when they first starting flouting the values of 18th century British society. Death to Washington! Death To Jefferson! Burn Franklin at the stake!
So when I pick my six-year-old daughter up at the library and she tells me what she saw when she was there, I should give her the old "it was wrong of you to be offended" lecture? Or maybe I should explain to her how fortunate she is to live in a society where the Constitution gives that man the right to watch those movies at the library.
As the parent of a six year-old (or any minor child), it is *your* responsibility to control what she can or can't see. If you don't like some of the content that is provided in the library and you're concerned that she might be exposed to that content, then you need to stay with her in the library to make sure she doesn't see that content.
It's the old saw, "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."
You have the right to police what your minor daughter sees and hears, but your right to do so ends when you abridge the rights of others. Stop demanding that others take on *your* responsibilities. That's just as selfish as the jerk who watches porn in the middle of the library and refuses to move when asked to be considerate.