A government that relentlessly fights is not a good thing. The only thing that comes out of that government is whatever was brokered through deals, which means that each bill will come with another bill that was passed solely to get votes on the other. We need reasonable, rational, and moderate people who can think intelligently about issues and come up with measured, but effective responses instead of spending four years with each group pandering to their party's "base". Politics is ridiculous, and it's time to see something change instead of allowing the RNC and DNC to continue to feed us the BS that we have.
I'm sorry, but the significant hate against Clinton is exactly the reason not to vote for her. She will get absolutely zero done because the Republicans will fight every breath she takes. It will be the nastiest four years anyone will be able to remember. You cannot be a good leader if you are extremely divisive. How can you effectively lead when half the people you are trying to lead truly hate you?
They may have some policy differences, but they really aren't that different, and people actually like Obama and he inspires people. That's a really important point. Positive is better than negative in more ways than just feel good BS. One of Reagan's biggest benefits was his positive, likable personality. Same with the previous Clinton.
I can't decide if this is a troll or an astute observation.
It's neither. It's a joke. There are plenty of decent comments among the juvenile comments. Really, the summaries have become more ridiculous than the comments lately.
While this site might have as much readership as a major newspaper, if you look at the comments, you'll assume that the readership is largely made up of people that aren't old enough to vote.
The title is very misleading, its actual a response to a possible panic caused by people using bad detectors. Imagine if hundreds of people buy shitty detectors that can be tripped by high NOX counts(A car emission). Suddenly on a hot afternoon during rush hour, 100+ counters register a large nuclear presence. Thats a big worry.
There's no evidence that this has happened or is likely to happen. It's better to keep laws to a minimum than to sit around making up hypothetical situation and then passing sweeping and restrictive laws to try to prevent them.
This article shouldn't tell you anything. It's useless drivel. If you like to hate Apple, you'll believe it because it makes Apple look bad. If you like Apple, you'll bash on the numbers. Regardless, it doesn't have any substance at all.
these are facts, which are true whether or not you 'believe' them.
Don't misrepresent what science is. Science is always changing its mind based on new findings. That's what it is supposed to do. This is our current understanding. It may be the true behavior of nature; it may only be the best explanation for what we currently know and we'll later discover something that provides a much better explanation. You shouldn't call something like this 'true' - you should simply say that it is the current explanation. There will always be more information to uncover - do you really think science will reach some kind of end?
I'm not sure what to make of this. Are you implying that atheism is a state at which humans arrive at, being theistic at first?
No, s/he's saying s/he's a Calvinist. It's a rather dismal view of Christian theology that says that there is not free will - we all simply do what God has predestined us to do, much like actors in a play. In Calvin's world, the only ones that make it to heaven are the "elect" - the ones that God chose to be believers. The Calvinists often don't like to talk about the people that aren't "elect" - the ones that they believe God chose to go to hell.
There are plenty of Christian theologians that completely dismiss that view, so don't feel compelled to latch onto the sick and twisted view of Yahweh as the only such view of Yahweh and run around badgering Christians about their mean and cruel God (ala Dawkins).
I've never read Dawkins' books, but from the interviews I've seen, he seems like a guy that's just angry at religion and looking to beat it with a stick. You seem to somewhat confirm this. I might go pick up one of the other two books. It's nice to read thoughtful things that aren't just blatant attacks. Maybe someone could introduce that concept into politics as well.
To paraphrase Richard Dawkin's central argument in "The God Delusion": all religion is necessarily evil because it fosters a culture in which a faith-based life is an acceptable lifestyle, which in turn leaves a society with no means of resaonably extirpating the extremists, who are truly dangerous. In other words, if moderate faith is acceptable, it is implicit that extreme faith must also be acceptable.
I really hope you paraphrased poorly, because that's a terrible argument. Are thousands of people really and truly reading this guy's book on intellectual intolerance and agreeing with him? You could make the same argument substituting "liberal" for "faith". We can't allow the moderate liberals because that would allow the extreme ones that lean towards socialism, and our country could succumb to socialism.
I haven't read the book, so he may have better arguments, but that one is a dead end. If we are to have freedom, we can't have intolerance of that kind. Of course, it's coming from the same guy that suggested that life on Earth may have come from intelligent beings from another planet that happened to be stopping by here billions of years ago.
I don't disagree with you. I'm just saying that genetic engineering and bio enhancements are going to further the gap. There is already a large gap. The gap is going to get a lot worse with these things.
Because only the haves will be able to afford enhancement. With enhancements, they'll have even more relative to those that don't and the gap will widen. The gap will continue to widen as the haves continue to enhance themselves away from the have nots. That's pretty straightforward. If you can improve yourself and give yourself an advantage, then surely you will choose to do so. Those that cannot will then be even further disadvantaged. This is why there are scholarships and grants and whatnot to enable the poor to go to college - otherwise, they would be permanently disadvantaged, as the rich can afford college and they can't.
This is how we're going to evolve, from here on out.
I seriously hope that I die before that comes to pass. Given the greed in this world, modding humans will only lead to a greater disparity between "have" and "have not." I'd like to hope for better, but it seems like that would just be foolish.
Since you're quite convinced of the incorrectness of my position, please explain to me how something goes from the "God basket" to the "science basket". Sure, we develop scientific understanding of some facet of nature. I get that. What I don't get is how that somehow makes it separated from God. Just because we know how something works doesn't disconnect it from the concept of having been created by a higher power. Please explain how science disproves God.
You're right that I didn't "explain" anything. I'm saying that the other side failed to do the explaining. The other side is the one that put forth the theorem, not me. If they're using their theorem to disprove God, I'd like to see an explanation of said theorem. I'm not so attached to the idea of God that I'm not willing to hear an argument and change my mind. As it is, I think there is better evidence in the direction of God than there is in the direction of not God. Feel free to convince me otherwise. It's not even that hard. I've changed my mind on the subject several times in the course of 31 years.
You forgot to explain what's wrong with the basket metaphor.
Simple: the basket metaphor is working on the assumption that once science can explain something, that something could not have been caused by God. If you want to say that wind is caused by the movement of air between different pressures, then what causes the different pressures? Temperature? What causes the temperature? The sun? What put the sun there? The big bang? What put the big bang there? Where does it all head? Science can keep peeling the onion back, and that's fine. What's at the center of the onion? Could well be God. Fact is, we don't really know. So, the simple fact that science has taken another layer off of the onion doesn't do anything to change that the thing underlying all of it might be some higher being or power. Science may well be taking us closer and closer to understanding the root cause of everything. It may never get there. We don't really know. Those in the science camp would like to say that everything is explainable by some math. Those in the religion camp would like to say that God is behind it all. Some would like to say that God is a brilliant mathematician and the scientists are simply finding ways to explain what God did.
The problem with the basket analogy is that the fact that you now have a formula for something doesn't mean that God didn't do it. It only means that you know how it happens. If you want to convince me of the basket analogy, then explain to me how knowing the science behind something means that God didn't do it. You can call me some moron "believer" or whatever it is that you want, but I'm perfectly willing to accept your position that there is no God, but you're not willing to accept mine. I'd like to get into an actual discussion of this topic, but the problem is that most people seem to only be able to say "Look: science" and they can't say much else. Many people seem to be stuck on the fact that they hate religion because it's for idiots and they therefore would like to believe that scientific explanations somehow deny the fact that God exists, but they can't seem to explain how or why they do so.
Until a religion starts making claims about reality that can be falsified.
Christianity itself doesn't make these claims. Some of its followers do. Some of its followers also say you shouldn't drink alcohol, despite the fact that the Bible clearly says drinking wine is good for you. So, don't believe all the things that come out of the mouths of people and don't assign all of the foolish things to the religion as a whole. It seems that a lot of people want to go out and find the foolish people and knock them down while saying they are knocking down the whole of Christianity. There are foolish atheists the same as there are foolish Christians. Knocking down the foolish ones doesn't serve as much of an argument towards anything.
Simple minded people will chalk things up to God and move on. That in and of itself does not mean that Christianity dictates this behavior. It seems people want to look at a certain subset of Christians and use them as an example of what Christianity really is. Are all college students pot smoking vegans? Just because I can point to a bunch of pot smoking vegans who are in college doesn't make that what college is all about.
Sorry to send you off on a rant. Simply substitute "the idea of God" or "belief in God" in place of "God" in what I said. I guess that could have been more clear.
Stop confusing your redefined vague new age bullshit god with the vengeful, jealous and petulant God of the desert.
Stop completely misunderstanding Christian theology.
nowadays religion brings nothing good it seems, what happened to compassion and love thy neighbour? instead we get peadophile priests and sexual abuse cases,
what happened to helping the poor? last i checked the Vatican is rich beyond belief and is rung better than most corporations out there
Quit watching the news and look around. Many Christians are doing good in the world. They're just not calling CNN to come cover it. Yes, there are bunch of people that use Christianity to get what they want, but that's true of nearly anything.
People who lack the ability to understand things scientifically revert to religious explanations.
That argument is as foolish as the argument of the creationists who fight against evolution. It's narrow minded. There are plenty of people that allow for both. The fact that some people are narrow minded on the other side of an argument doesn't mean you should be narrow minded on yours. That's how we ended up with Republicans and Democrats.
Teaching impressionable children to believe what basically amounts to magic has no effect on their ability to think critically? Do you really believe that?
You're still thinking that the two are related. They're not. Teach your kid science. Teach your kid that God created the world. You don't have to pick one or the other. There are many scientists that are believers in God. Do you think that they are not able to think critically? Was Newton unable to do so? I know a number of folks with PhD's in difficult scientific disciplines that are uncovering new theories that are also believers. I know evolutionary biologists that are believers. Teaching your kid that science is a way of uncovering the things we don't understand is not an affront to belief in God. Belief in God is not an affront to using science to understand why things happen.
God is not an explanation of how. It may be an explanation of why, but science isn't looking into why we are here, it's looking into how. Atheism is a belief of why just the same as God is. Everyone has an opinion on why, even if it is "I don't know", "fate", "random chance" or "God". None of these are any threat to thinking critically or using science.
Slashdot Mirror
A government that relentlessly fights is not a good thing. The only thing that comes out of that government is whatever was brokered through deals, which means that each bill will come with another bill that was passed solely to get votes on the other. We need reasonable, rational, and moderate people who can think intelligently about issues and come up with measured, but effective responses instead of spending four years with each group pandering to their party's "base". Politics is ridiculous, and it's time to see something change instead of allowing the RNC and DNC to continue to feed us the BS that we have.
I'm sorry, but the significant hate against Clinton is exactly the reason not to vote for her. She will get absolutely zero done because the Republicans will fight every breath she takes. It will be the nastiest four years anyone will be able to remember. You cannot be a good leader if you are extremely divisive. How can you effectively lead when half the people you are trying to lead truly hate you?
They may have some policy differences, but they really aren't that different, and people actually like Obama and he inspires people. That's a really important point. Positive is better than negative in more ways than just feel good BS. One of Reagan's biggest benefits was his positive, likable personality. Same with the previous Clinton.
While this site might have as much readership as a major newspaper, if you look at the comments, you'll assume that the readership is largely made up of people that aren't old enough to vote.
This article shouldn't tell you anything. It's useless drivel. If you like to hate Apple, you'll believe it because it makes Apple look bad. If you like Apple, you'll bash on the numbers. Regardless, it doesn't have any substance at all.
No, the word for that is "teen".
There are plenty of Christian theologians that completely dismiss that view, so don't feel compelled to latch onto the sick and twisted view of Yahweh as the only such view of Yahweh and run around badgering Christians about their mean and cruel God (ala Dawkins).
I've never read Dawkins' books, but from the interviews I've seen, he seems like a guy that's just angry at religion and looking to beat it with a stick. You seem to somewhat confirm this. I might go pick up one of the other two books. It's nice to read thoughtful things that aren't just blatant attacks. Maybe someone could introduce that concept into politics as well.
I haven't read the book, so he may have better arguments, but that one is a dead end. If we are to have freedom, we can't have intolerance of that kind. Of course, it's coming from the same guy that suggested that life on Earth may have come from intelligent beings from another planet that happened to be stopping by here billions of years ago.
I don't disagree with you. I'm just saying that genetic engineering and bio enhancements are going to further the gap. There is already a large gap. The gap is going to get a lot worse with these things.
Because only the haves will be able to afford enhancement. With enhancements, they'll have even more relative to those that don't and the gap will widen. The gap will continue to widen as the haves continue to enhance themselves away from the have nots. That's pretty straightforward. If you can improve yourself and give yourself an advantage, then surely you will choose to do so. Those that cannot will then be even further disadvantaged. This is why there are scholarships and grants and whatnot to enable the poor to go to college - otherwise, they would be permanently disadvantaged, as the rich can afford college and they can't.
Since you're quite convinced of the incorrectness of my position, please explain to me how something goes from the "God basket" to the "science basket". Sure, we develop scientific understanding of some facet of nature. I get that. What I don't get is how that somehow makes it separated from God. Just because we know how something works doesn't disconnect it from the concept of having been created by a higher power. Please explain how science disproves God.
You're right that I didn't "explain" anything. I'm saying that the other side failed to do the explaining. The other side is the one that put forth the theorem, not me. If they're using their theorem to disprove God, I'd like to see an explanation of said theorem. I'm not so attached to the idea of God that I'm not willing to hear an argument and change my mind. As it is, I think there is better evidence in the direction of God than there is in the direction of not God. Feel free to convince me otherwise. It's not even that hard. I've changed my mind on the subject several times in the course of 31 years.
The problem with the basket analogy is that the fact that you now have a formula for something doesn't mean that God didn't do it. It only means that you know how it happens. If you want to convince me of the basket analogy, then explain to me how knowing the science behind something means that God didn't do it. You can call me some moron "believer" or whatever it is that you want, but I'm perfectly willing to accept your position that there is no God, but you're not willing to accept mine. I'd like to get into an actual discussion of this topic, but the problem is that most people seem to only be able to say "Look: science" and they can't say much else. Many people seem to be stuck on the fact that they hate religion because it's for idiots and they therefore would like to believe that scientific explanations somehow deny the fact that God exists, but they can't seem to explain how or why they do so.
Simple minded people will chalk things up to God and move on. That in and of itself does not mean that Christianity dictates this behavior. It seems people want to look at a certain subset of Christians and use them as an example of what Christianity really is. Are all college students pot smoking vegans? Just because I can point to a bunch of pot smoking vegans who are in college doesn't make that what college is all about.
God is not an explanation of how. It may be an explanation of why, but science isn't looking into why we are here, it's looking into how. Atheism is a belief of why just the same as God is. Everyone has an opinion on why, even if it is "I don't know", "fate", "random chance" or "God". None of these are any threat to thinking critically or using science.