I see what you're saying, but if we change the rules for a "spiritual realm" we could just say easily say the rules here, in the phyical universe we know and love, used to be different. Or that our understanding of them is incomplete.
Doing any of that is fundamentally throwing science out the window or reducing physical "laws" to physical "guidelines." I'm not proposing we do that. I'm proposing we accept science's ability to explain things up to its ability to do so; but that we recognize that there may very well be a point where science won't be able to answer a question. And why would that be? Because, perhaps, it was created by God and no amount of science will be able to explain a miracle. If we're going to arbitrarily suspend the laws of physics at, or just before, the Big Bang, then that's no more scientific than accepting the spiritual explanation.
From the polls I've seen, that's essentially what most of the country believes. Most of the country does believe in God and most of the country also believes in science. The two are not incompatible. They explain different things but it's very possible, at some point, we will reach a point where the two "interface." I believe that point is creation itself, and I think it's very possible that I.D. is not too far off the mark in reconciling science and religion. But for some reason, many extremist scientists resist the idea even though there's no reason for scientists to do so unless science has become a religion. In which case, that needs to be recognized.
And, no, I'm not suggesting I.D. be taught as science in science classes; though I think the possibility of science reaching the spiritual interface is real in our lifetime so I think potential future scientists should at least be made familiar with the possibility. I'm not sure where that should happen, though.
You could claim that god always existed, thus never created himself, but then, I could also claim the world always existed, too. The thing is, I know the world exists because I'm living in it. I don't know if god exists or not. So how does it take more faith to believe the world exists without being created than to believe god created it?
The difference between the universe always existing and God always existing is that the universe exists in the physical realm. God, if He exists, exists in the spiritual realm. If the spiritual realm exists, no, it does not necessarily conform to the same laws as the physical realm. Maybe things can exist forever from the past and into the future in the spiritual realm. But when it comes to the physical realm with which we are familiar and can test and observe, science is giving us a pretty good idea at the real age of our universe. We know our universe didn't always exist. What happened before the Big Bang? Was it the spontaneous creation of something out of nothing? Or was it just the recycling of a previous universe that had collapsed in on itself? It's all speculation and certainly no less questionable than believing in God as the creator of the whole thing.
The purpose of science is not to disprove God. And, of course, it cannot. Science can only prove and disprove that which exists in the physical realm--and if God exists, He does not exist in the physical realm. However, it is possible for science to establish how likely (or unlikely) certain things in the physical world are. At some point, the unlikelihood of many events compounded together result in the observation that the universe is absurdly improbable if it happened all by itself. Conversely, at some point science can result in an observation that it is probable that it didn't happen by itself. At which point it becomes the job of religion and/or philosophers to work on the "rest" of the problem.
Anyway... I was raised as a Christian. At some point in my adolescence and into my early 20's, I fell away and became very skeptical of everything. Believe me, I've been where you are now. But the science and my observations eventually took me right back to where I started. I'm content to take the abuse from those that mock me and feel they are superior because they don't believe in God, but having been in both places I can assure you I am very comfortable with the logical and faith-based conclusions I have reached. I think science will eventually drive many others to believe as I do, but in the meantime I do not mind taking the abuse. I can sympathize with your point of view because I used to share it.
Let me turn your own statement back on its head. It's not that nonbelievers refuse to accept the obvious evidence of God's existence, it's that we see the world and don't see the need to postulate anything supernatural beyond it in order to explain it.
Which, in my opinion, requires more faith than believing in God.
God demands faith. God does not provide proof, because proof kills faith. If you see something that you think is proof of God's existence, you're wrong. He's ineffable. That means you can't effing figure him out.
You definitely can figure God out. God spells himself out in the Bible and even essentially said, "Even though I'm spelling it out, there are people who won't get it even though it's as plain as day to those who do." God doesn't intentionally hide and make it difficult to believe in Him; He's not trying to be trick smart people into not believing in Him so that only the stupid are saved. That there is evidence that we can all see, whether it's in the Bible or in the environment around us, makes it all the more amazing that people refuse to believe in Him. But God knew that would happen and said so in the Bible.
Racism should be fine if it is expressed verbally or in the written word and not actually acted upon. Again, I must ask: What is wrong with free speech in Europe?
However, they apparently missed a comment proposing genocide of Palestinians. This prompted a Swedish leftist blogger to report the conservative foreign minister's blog and the comment to the authorities. Now a prosecutor is looking into the matter and the foreign minister will likely be held responsible for the comments due to poor Swedish legislation on freedom of speech relative to the Internet."
Huh? What's wrong with free speech in Europe that it is apparently illegal to propose genocide of Palestinians? That solution sounds disgusting and I don't support it, but someone who feels differently damn well should be allowed to suggest it. On or off the Internet.
I know Europe is supposed to be some paradise or something where no-one ever gets sick and everyone has health care, but I think I'll stick to the United States, even if it's supposedly fascist. Yeah, right.
Looks like global warming is off the hook this time around.
Nah. This story is only a few days old. Give it time. Global warming is always eventually blamed for anything remotely environmental. Except when George Bush is blamed. But of course global warming is caused by George Bush so that's a minor distinction.
Whether you like him or not, believe what he says or not, you have to agree that Michael Moore is influential.
Yep. He influenced me to vote for Bush in '04 because I couldn't believe his audacious lies in F-9/11. I wasn't so much for Bush or against Kerry as I was against Moore. That said, I would've voted for Bush had I voted in '04--but since I was overseas and it was a bit of a hassle, I wasn't going to bother. Then I saw F-9/11 and went through the hassle of voting.
Heck, there's already been a shift in certain circles towards the next "stage" in avoiding responsibility for global warming. First, they denied the warming. Then, they denied that humans were responsible. Now, they've moved on to the coup de grâce: who's to say warmer won't be better?
Some of us have been making all three arguments for well over a decade. It's not that the arguments against global warming have changed, it's just that those that believe in human-induced global warming are migrating through the different arguments against it. Once some people think that global warming has been established, they moved on to the next argument which is whether or not humans were the cause. Now that a group of scientists/politicians (ask yourself what the latter are doing in that group) have supposedly decided that humans are the cause, now those promoting the whole agenda have moved on to the question of whether or not a warmer environment wouldn't be better.
The arguments of those that doubt human-induced global warming haven't changed--it's just a matter of which arguments the proponents of human-induced global warming choose to focus on. But it's convenient for those people to insinuate that the skeptics have been changing their arguments. No, we haven't. You've just been changing which argument you focus on depending on which things you think have been proven. But I understand that it's convenient to insinuate that your opponents are the ones changing and re-stating their argument.
No kidding. I've seen those cars in movies and every time I see them, I laugh. For something that small (publicity claims to "large interior" not withstanding), I'd want a HECK of a lot more than 40mpg. And I'd want it for a lot less than $14,000--why in the world does it cost so much?
First off, we have to realize that global warming is a problem.
No, first we have to determine if it is a problem. And, no, contrary to what the media and the IPCC would have you believe, that is far from certain. The President of the Czech Republic was completely correct.
" 'Let us resist the politicization of science and oppose the term "scientific consensus," which is always achieved only by a loud minority, never by a silent majority.'"
Amen. I wish we had some more common sense politicians (and citizens) like the president of the Czech Republic in the U.S.
We should not be nervous around the people we are paying to protect us. There is something wrong when that's the case.
Maybe what's wrong is you. I don't know anyone that is nervous around police. Well, sure, if a cop is behind me I do tend to drive a little more carefully, but not because I'm nervous about the cop or what he might do to me--I just don't want to deal with the 10-15 minutes involved in getting pulled over.
The 10 or so cops I've dealt with in 4 different states were all polite and professional. When I was young, I even called the police once because someone was trying to hack my BBS and they sent a police officer over to my house that took the time to talk to a 14-year old "SysOp." When I worked at McDonald's as a manager and there'd be a suspicious car out, we'd call the police and they'd come over and talk to whoever was parked in our parking lot at midnight so we could securely leave the restaurant after closing at midnight.
I'm sorry if your experience has been different. And I don't believe that all police are good people. But I simply cannot agree with you that "most" people "loathe cops." I don't know anyone who loathes cops. YMMV.
so that day, a white woman gets a fine and some court costs for causing a 3 car collsion that could have killed herself and at least two other people, and a black man loses his license and gets a drug conviction for not paying attention to a cop directing traffic at the sccident caused by the white woman.
So the white woman was in an accident and was treated as such while the black guy was caught for possession and treated as such. What exactly is the problem with that??>
Heheheh. I knew that was coming. No, it didn't. But of all the cars that I had driven, it was the best-looking and newest car I'd been "seen" in so if there was any opportunity of being given the benefit of the doubt, that was it.
I have never ever, ever met a good policeperson. Not even mediocre. 90% of America also shares this sentiment. (the other 10% being the most wealthy)
That sounds silly and made up. Most of our experience with policemen come when we're pulled over for speeding or some other traffic infraction. It's happened to me probably ten times in my life. Never once have I had a problem in any of the four states I was pulled over. In each case, the policeman was professional and polite. These incidents happened from the year I got my driver's license at 16 years old and was driving a beat up, 13+ year old Mustang, in another case driving a kind of old Honda Accord with a friend, another time when I was along with two other friends driving an early model Hyundai, and another time driving a Geo Storm. And yet another time when a friend and I decided to sleep in that same Hyundai in a shopping center parking lot in the L.A. area rather than spending money on a hotel; in retrospect, that probably looked very suspicious. And with the possible exception of the Geo Storm (which was new and pretty at the time), none of the cars gave an impression of me/us being anywhere near wealthy. And when we were in other states, there was definitely no way the policeman knew by the address on my driver's license that it was a upper middle-class neighborhood. But I've always been treated well.
I think how a policeman behaves has a lot more to do with the demeanor of the person that he is dealing with. If you're an ass, don't expect stellar treatment. Granted, being an ass isn't an excuse for them to treat you poorly, but there's no reason to be an ass to start with. Just be a polite human being and I bet you find that the police do the same. That's been my experience, anyway.
On the other hand, maybe you're right. Maybe 90% of the population does agree with you because 90% of the population do tend to be asses and then wonder why they "don't get no respect."
I'm part of the Treo crowd and I have no interest in an iPhone. As best as I can tell, the iPhone is a fancy, market-hyped phone that does about what I've been doing with my Treo for years. Sure, it makes MP3 playback easier but so what? I normally don't use my MP3 player at times when I want to have my phone on-hand and vice versa. I listen to my iPod when I'm doing some biking or sitting on a plane--in both cases, I have my phone with me but its stowed; in the case of biking, I don't want a relatively large (compared to my iPod Nano) $500 device strapped to my arm just waiting to wiggle loose and shatter into a million pieces on the street below me.
I'm sure the iPhone has a market, but I don't think it's the Blackberry/Treo crowd--except for maybe a few fringe convergence freaks and a few people where the teen/geek market overlaps with the productivity Blackberry/Treo crowd.
Thats what most people do though, including all those people that don't watch your really geeky channels. If they stopped paying for them, you'd stop getting them.
I still don't see paying for channels that have commercials on them. There should be a flat cable rate for all channels that have commercials. If you want HBO, PPV, and other stuff without commercials then you pay a premium for those channels. But there's no reason you should pay more for more commercial-ridden channels. The channel gets paid by the commercials and the cable company should be making its money off the base rate and providing a simple pipe. There is no additional cost to the cable company for providing extra channels.
Unless, of course, the cable company has to pay the channels to carry their channel, but if that's the case then the cable company has really sucked at wielding its near-monopoly power.
Email and, to a lesser extent, IMs are also preferable because ultimately I get to deal with them when it's convenient to me. While I guess you can ignore a phone call and let it go to voice mail, I find the phone ringing far more distracting than a little notification window popping up and telling me I have some new email to check when I get done with what I'm currently working on.
At this point, I can't think of anything that bothers me more on a daily basis than people that feel they need to pick up the phone and call me when an email would do the exact same thing.
Plus I like being able to refer back to the emails for informational and reference purposes a day later... or five years later.
Slashdot Mirror
No, but I have yet to find a decent one that sounds good both to me and to the person I'm talking to.
I see what you're saying, but if we change the rules for a "spiritual realm" we could just say easily say the rules here, in the phyical universe we know and love, used to be different. Or that our understanding of them is incomplete.
Doing any of that is fundamentally throwing science out the window or reducing physical "laws" to physical "guidelines." I'm not proposing we do that. I'm proposing we accept science's ability to explain things up to its ability to do so; but that we recognize that there may very well be a point where science won't be able to answer a question. And why would that be? Because, perhaps, it was created by God and no amount of science will be able to explain a miracle. If we're going to arbitrarily suspend the laws of physics at, or just before, the Big Bang, then that's no more scientific than accepting the spiritual explanation.
From the polls I've seen, that's essentially what most of the country believes. Most of the country does believe in God and most of the country also believes in science. The two are not incompatible. They explain different things but it's very possible, at some point, we will reach a point where the two "interface." I believe that point is creation itself, and I think it's very possible that I.D. is not too far off the mark in reconciling science and religion. But for some reason, many extremist scientists resist the idea even though there's no reason for scientists to do so unless science has become a religion. In which case, that needs to be recognized.
And, no, I'm not suggesting I.D. be taught as science in science classes; though I think the possibility of science reaching the spiritual interface is real in our lifetime so I think potential future scientists should at least be made familiar with the possibility. I'm not sure where that should happen, though.
Anyone who has not heard Belafonte on LP is missing nearly an hour of music
And anyone who hasn't heard Belafonte on either LP or CD probably has had a couple hours more of productive, enjoyable life than those who have.
You could claim that god always existed, thus never created himself, but then, I could also claim the world always existed, too. The thing is, I know the world exists because I'm living in it. I don't know if god exists or not. So how does it take more faith to believe the world exists without being created than to believe god created it?
The difference between the universe always existing and God always existing is that the universe exists in the physical realm. God, if He exists, exists in the spiritual realm. If the spiritual realm exists, no, it does not necessarily conform to the same laws as the physical realm. Maybe things can exist forever from the past and into the future in the spiritual realm. But when it comes to the physical realm with which we are familiar and can test and observe, science is giving us a pretty good idea at the real age of our universe. We know our universe didn't always exist. What happened before the Big Bang? Was it the spontaneous creation of something out of nothing? Or was it just the recycling of a previous universe that had collapsed in on itself? It's all speculation and certainly no less questionable than believing in God as the creator of the whole thing.
The purpose of science is not to disprove God. And, of course, it cannot. Science can only prove and disprove that which exists in the physical realm--and if God exists, He does not exist in the physical realm. However, it is possible for science to establish how likely (or unlikely) certain things in the physical world are. At some point, the unlikelihood of many events compounded together result in the observation that the universe is absurdly improbable if it happened all by itself. Conversely, at some point science can result in an observation that it is probable that it didn't happen by itself. At which point it becomes the job of religion and/or philosophers to work on the "rest" of the problem.
Anyway... I was raised as a Christian. At some point in my adolescence and into my early 20's, I fell away and became very skeptical of everything. Believe me, I've been where you are now. But the science and my observations eventually took me right back to where I started. I'm content to take the abuse from those that mock me and feel they are superior because they don't believe in God, but having been in both places I can assure you I am very comfortable with the logical and faith-based conclusions I have reached. I think science will eventually drive many others to believe as I do, but in the meantime I do not mind taking the abuse. I can sympathize with your point of view because I used to share it.
Let me turn your own statement back on its head. It's not that nonbelievers refuse to accept the obvious evidence of God's existence, it's that we see the world and don't see the need to postulate anything supernatural beyond it in order to explain it.
Which, in my opinion, requires more faith than believing in God.
All a matter of perspective, you see.
No argument on that point.
God demands faith. God does not provide proof, because proof kills faith. If you see something that you think is proof of God's existence, you're wrong. He's ineffable. That means you can't effing figure him out.
You definitely can figure God out. God spells himself out in the Bible and even essentially said, "Even though I'm spelling it out, there are people who won't get it even though it's as plain as day to those who do." God doesn't intentionally hide and make it difficult to believe in Him; He's not trying to be trick smart people into not believing in Him so that only the stupid are saved. That there is evidence that we can all see, whether it's in the Bible or in the environment around us, makes it all the more amazing that people refuse to believe in Him. But God knew that would happen and said so in the Bible.
Racism should be fine if it is expressed verbally or in the written word and not actually acted upon. Again, I must ask: What is wrong with free speech in Europe?
However, they apparently missed a comment proposing genocide of Palestinians. This prompted a Swedish leftist blogger to report the conservative foreign minister's blog and the comment to the authorities. Now a prosecutor is looking into the matter and the foreign minister will likely be held responsible for the comments due to poor Swedish legislation on freedom of speech relative to the Internet."
Huh? What's wrong with free speech in Europe that it is apparently illegal to propose genocide of Palestinians? That solution sounds disgusting and I don't support it, but someone who feels differently damn well should be allowed to suggest it. On or off the Internet.
I know Europe is supposed to be some paradise or something where no-one ever gets sick and everyone has health care, but I think I'll stick to the United States, even if it's supposedly fascist. Yeah, right.
"Mousey!"
"The humans must never see us eat!"
Yes, every unusual event can be safely assumed to be caused by global warming until there is evidence to the contrary. Who can deny that logic?
Absolutely! Except for those things caused by George Bush, of course.
Looks like global warming is off the hook this time around.
Nah. This story is only a few days old. Give it time. Global warming is always eventually blamed for anything remotely environmental. Except when George Bush is blamed. But of course global warming is caused by George Bush so that's a minor distinction.
Whether you like him or not, believe what he says or not, you have to agree that Michael Moore is influential.
Yep. He influenced me to vote for Bush in '04 because I couldn't believe his audacious lies in F-9/11. I wasn't so much for Bush or against Kerry as I was against Moore. That said, I would've voted for Bush had I voted in '04--but since I was overseas and it was a bit of a hassle, I wasn't going to bother. Then I saw F-9/11 and went through the hassle of voting.
Heck, there's already been a shift in certain circles towards the next "stage" in avoiding responsibility for global warming. First, they denied the warming. Then, they denied that humans were responsible. Now, they've moved on to the coup de grâce: who's to say warmer won't be better?
Some of us have been making all three arguments for well over a decade. It's not that the arguments against global warming have changed, it's just that those that believe in human-induced global warming are migrating through the different arguments against it. Once some people think that global warming has been established, they moved on to the next argument which is whether or not humans were the cause. Now that a group of scientists/politicians (ask yourself what the latter are doing in that group) have supposedly decided that humans are the cause, now those promoting the whole agenda have moved on to the question of whether or not a warmer environment wouldn't be better.
The arguments of those that doubt human-induced global warming haven't changed--it's just a matter of which arguments the proponents of human-induced global warming choose to focus on. But it's convenient for those people to insinuate that the skeptics have been changing their arguments. No, we haven't. You've just been changing which argument you focus on depending on which things you think have been proven. But I understand that it's convenient to insinuate that your opponents are the ones changing and re-stating their argument.
No kidding. I've seen those cars in movies and every time I see them, I laugh. For something that small (publicity claims to "large interior" not withstanding), I'd want a HECK of a lot more than 40mpg. And I'd want it for a lot less than $14,000--why in the world does it cost so much?
Unfortunately, we do.
But he doesn't directly and eloquently say what needs to be said like the President of the Czech Republic.
You forgot the quotes around "common sense."
I didn't forget anything. But cute response.
First off, we have to realize that global warming is a problem.
No, first we have to determine if it is a problem. And, no, contrary to what the media and the IPCC would have you believe, that is far from certain. The President of the Czech Republic was completely correct.
" 'Let us resist the politicization of science and oppose the term "scientific consensus," which is always achieved only by a loud minority, never by a silent majority.'"
Amen. I wish we had some more common sense politicians (and citizens) like the president of the Czech Republic in the U.S.
Is anybody else alarmed about the news that we just killed an old whale?
Not particularly, no.
We should not be nervous around the people we are paying to protect us. There is something wrong when that's the case.
Maybe what's wrong is you. I don't know anyone that is nervous around police. Well, sure, if a cop is behind me I do tend to drive a little more carefully, but not because I'm nervous about the cop or what he might do to me--I just don't want to deal with the 10-15 minutes involved in getting pulled over.
The 10 or so cops I've dealt with in 4 different states were all polite and professional. When I was young, I even called the police once because someone was trying to hack my BBS and they sent a police officer over to my house that took the time to talk to a 14-year old "SysOp." When I worked at McDonald's as a manager and there'd be a suspicious car out, we'd call the police and they'd come over and talk to whoever was parked in our parking lot at midnight so we could securely leave the restaurant after closing at midnight.
I'm sorry if your experience has been different. And I don't believe that all police are good people. But I simply cannot agree with you that "most" people "loathe cops." I don't know anyone who loathes cops. YMMV.
so that day, a white woman gets a fine and some court costs for causing a 3 car collsion that could have killed herself and at least two other people, and a black man loses his license and gets a drug conviction for not paying attention to a cop directing traffic at the sccident caused by the white woman.
So the white woman was in an accident and was treated as such while the black guy was caught for possession and treated as such. What exactly is the problem with that??>
Heheheh. I knew that was coming. No, it didn't. But of all the cars that I had driven, it was the best-looking and newest car I'd been "seen" in so if there was any opportunity of being given the benefit of the doubt, that was it.
I have never ever, ever met a good policeperson. Not even mediocre. 90% of America also shares this sentiment. (the other 10% being the most wealthy)
That sounds silly and made up. Most of our experience with policemen come when we're pulled over for speeding or some other traffic infraction. It's happened to me probably ten times in my life. Never once have I had a problem in any of the four states I was pulled over. In each case, the policeman was professional and polite. These incidents happened from the year I got my driver's license at 16 years old and was driving a beat up, 13+ year old Mustang, in another case driving a kind of old Honda Accord with a friend, another time when I was along with two other friends driving an early model Hyundai, and another time driving a Geo Storm. And yet another time when a friend and I decided to sleep in that same Hyundai in a shopping center parking lot in the L.A. area rather than spending money on a hotel; in retrospect, that probably looked very suspicious. And with the possible exception of the Geo Storm (which was new and pretty at the time), none of the cars gave an impression of me/us being anywhere near wealthy. And when we were in other states, there was definitely no way the policeman knew by the address on my driver's license that it was a upper middle-class neighborhood. But I've always been treated well.
I think how a policeman behaves has a lot more to do with the demeanor of the person that he is dealing with. If you're an ass, don't expect stellar treatment. Granted, being an ass isn't an excuse for them to treat you poorly, but there's no reason to be an ass to start with. Just be a polite human being and I bet you find that the police do the same. That's been my experience, anyway.
On the other hand, maybe you're right. Maybe 90% of the population does agree with you because 90% of the population do tend to be asses and then wonder why they "don't get no respect."
I'm part of the Treo crowd and I have no interest in an iPhone. As best as I can tell, the iPhone is a fancy, market-hyped phone that does about what I've been doing with my Treo for years. Sure, it makes MP3 playback easier but so what? I normally don't use my MP3 player at times when I want to have my phone on-hand and vice versa. I listen to my iPod when I'm doing some biking or sitting on a plane--in both cases, I have my phone with me but its stowed; in the case of biking, I don't want a relatively large (compared to my iPod Nano) $500 device strapped to my arm just waiting to wiggle loose and shatter into a million pieces on the street below me.
I'm sure the iPhone has a market, but I don't think it's the Blackberry/Treo crowd--except for maybe a few fringe convergence freaks and a few people where the teen/geek market overlaps with the productivity Blackberry/Treo crowd.
Thats what most people do though, including all those people that don't watch your really geeky channels. If they stopped paying for them, you'd stop getting them.
I still don't see paying for channels that have commercials on them. There should be a flat cable rate for all channels that have commercials. If you want HBO, PPV, and other stuff without commercials then you pay a premium for those channels. But there's no reason you should pay more for more commercial-ridden channels. The channel gets paid by the commercials and the cable company should be making its money off the base rate and providing a simple pipe. There is no additional cost to the cable company for providing extra channels.
Unless, of course, the cable company has to pay the channels to carry their channel, but if that's the case then the cable company has really sucked at wielding its near-monopoly power.
Quick follow-up...
Email and, to a lesser extent, IMs are also preferable because ultimately I get to deal with them when it's convenient to me. While I guess you can ignore a phone call and let it go to voice mail, I find the phone ringing far more distracting than a little notification window popping up and telling me I have some new email to check when I get done with what I'm currently working on.
At this point, I can't think of anything that bothers me more on a daily basis than people that feel they need to pick up the phone and call me when an email would do the exact same thing.
Plus I like being able to refer back to the emails for informational and reference purposes a day later... or five years later.