Oh, I see. So everybody should just move to a city, and further exacerbate the housing bubbles. Great idea. What's that you say? They should just go ahead and resign themselves to renting forever? Oh, that's a fine way to go. Nothing like not building up capital investments, and instead flushing money down the rented toilet!
Look, I live in the city. I like living in the city. It works for me. However, I'm not nearly arrogant enough to believe that the Only Responsible Way to Live is to live in the city.
Hell...who's going to grow your food if you chase everybody into urban areas?
Basically, your idea of using taxes to "hurt" people who do things you don't approve of is pretty darn reprehensible.
Where are these societies where people aren't interested in pictures of other, naked people? I think such a society would be very dull. And short-lived.
Awww, poor widdle Stevie Ballmer has a hard job. Wah wah.
How much does that bastard take home every day? Cry me a damn river. High pressure job? If he decides he can't handle it, he could quit today and live the rest of his life swimming in a Scrooge McDuck money pit.
Where in New Orleans are you going to land a C-17? Oh yeah, nowhere.
How many sorties does it take to evacuate 100,000 people with Chinooks? Let's see, if I remember correctly, they'll carry 50 troops with gear. So call that 70 people, assuming some are on stretchers. 70 into 100,000, that's...1400 sorties.
Where are you going to take them? Houston? Dallas? Birmingham? Each of those cities would be about five hours away by helicopter, give or take.
How do you handle the air traffic around the Superdome? That's not trivial.
We've got some transport helicopters, yes...but not nearly enough to solve this problem. And then, can you imagine the flak that would happen when one crashes?
Suffice it to say, the problem is a little bit more complex than "Well, just get some helicopters!"
Yes, if you assume your point 1 and point 2, you get to point 3. The point is, those are really dumb assumptions.
Look, it's clear that I'm imposing on you. You haven't presented me with anything that bears further discussion...I'm sorry to have wasted your time. Go with God.
1) I have a rock in my pocket. 2) I have never been attacked by a tiger. 3) Therefore, this rock in my pocket protects me from tigers.
It is a simple matter to construct secular, humanist moral values. The existence of such morals proves nothing, other than that people are smart and can figure things out.
If you say that "I know objective values exist, because they're written in the Bible, and I know the Bible is true, because it was written by God, and I know that God exists, because objective values exist", your argument boils down to precisely what I figured it would: You're begging the question. You're setting up a tautology, not demonstrating the validity of your axioms, and proving that the sky is made of Kleenex.
You might have faith in God, and that's great. Your reasoning is sketchy, at the very best.
You have still provided no such proof. You persist in questioning MY relationship with God (although I've gone to some lengths to ensure that I was respecting YOUR relationship with God).
You have utterly failed to provide a rational basis for your belief in God, never mind Christianity.
I need no proof. I see God all around me. I see Him in the lives of the people around me. This is not rational, but it's every bit as important to my life as my rational faculties are.
I know my faith. I know my God. If you know yours, you're doing a remarkably poor job sharing your knowledge.
Why do you think I'm an agnostic? Seems like you are prone to making unwarranted assumptions. You might want to be careful of that. I've been a confirmed, practicing Methodist for 20 years. (That's since I was twelve.)
Of course it's natural to want to see evidence. It's also impossible to present evidence of God's existence.
In all my studies of religion and philosophy, it always comes down to one thing: Do you believe, or not?
If you've got a logical proof of God's existence, I'd love to see it.
Ontological argument...that which is greater than the greatest thing of which I can conceive....bleh. That is a tired crutch.
If you believe in God, believe in God. If you need proof of God's existence to believe in God, don't believe in God. I happen to believe that God would be quite annoyed with us if we wasted our phenomenally powerful synthetic reasoning skills on trying to prove His existence rather than, say, curing cancer or draining New Orleans.
I believe it is NOT rational to state A) God exists and B) Christianity is the one true religion, because you can't make that argument without begging the question. Note: I do not dispute your (or my) faith in God on this basis.
Dressing up religion in the clothing of science is silly. Dressing up science in the clothing of religion is equally silly. Thinking that one can explain one with the other is silly.
The Bible is not a book about how the Heavens go...it is a book about how to go to Heaven. (That's Galileo. He was very not popular with the religious figures of his day.)
I don't believe that you can use reason to demonstrate the existence of God. Nor do I think it is necessary to do so.
Christian Creationists are allowed to do whatever they want. However, unless they check their assertion that God is the answer to all unanswered questions, they don't have anything "scientific" to add to the discussion.
Please don't misunderstand me: If you are a Creationist, I respect that. You are entitled to whatever faith tradition feeds your soul, and I hope that you will forever strive to improve your relationship with and your understanding of God.
You must, however, accept that your relationship with God is not scientific. There is no scientific rationale for the existence of God.
"They only contradict if you take one set of assumptions."
Yeah: Like the assumption that the Bible is the literal Word of God, un-changed by 1600 years of human transcription and translation.
If you take it as a non-historical, non-scientific allegory, it is a perfectly serviceable creation myth, and does a rather good job at laying out the order of things at the beginning of our universe.
I didn't respond to your assertion, because frankly I more or less agree with you. I just think it's a bit disingenuous for you to criticize sound-bite science with a sound bite.
If you construed that as an attack, I think you're being pretty sensitive. Were I to attack you, you'd know it.
If your solution is "Investigate renewable energy sources, and invest in cleaner ways of producing the goods and services we today enjoy", I'm right there with you.
If your solution is "Immediately slash by 30% the CO2 emissions of major industrialized nations", I'm thinking that we're in the stratospheric cost sort of region.
It's interesting to note that, normalized against production, the US's output of pollutants and greenhouse gases is very similar, or lower than, other industrialized nations.
"Its not the federal governments responsiblity to plan cities and protect them from natural disasters"
Actually, that is one of the Federal Government's only responsibilities. You know, that whole "Provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare" schtick.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't be ridiculous. There's no such thing as an Invisible Pink Unicorn.
OK, just because I'm stupid, how do you put a Bezier curved underline in Microsoft Word?
Who but the Flying Spaghetti Monster could possibly have a hair dryer powerful enough to destroy a star when He drops it in His Noodly Bathtub?
Oh, I see. So everybody should just move to a city, and further exacerbate the housing bubbles. Great idea. What's that you say? They should just go ahead and resign themselves to renting forever? Oh, that's a fine way to go. Nothing like not building up capital investments, and instead flushing money down the rented toilet!
Look, I live in the city. I like living in the city. It works for me. However, I'm not nearly arrogant enough to believe that the Only Responsible Way to Live is to live in the city.
Hell...who's going to grow your food if you chase everybody into urban areas?
Basically, your idea of using taxes to "hurt" people who do things you don't approve of is pretty darn reprehensible.
But that's just me, and I've only got one vote.
Whaaa...?
Where are these societies where people aren't interested in pictures of other, naked people? I think such a society would be very dull. And short-lived.
Oh good. I sure will enjoy having the price of my transit pass increasing with additional fuel costs. That'll be great fun!
I take a bus because it's feasible, financially attractive, and convenient. Not because you think I should be forced to do so.
As a matter of fact, I'd venture to say that any time you start thinking you need to force anybody to do anything, you need to rethink your idea.
Right, because anybody who complains about dupes must be an FPS lover. That's totally logical.
I need to get back to my baking simulator...my pie's almost done!
Awww, poor widdle Stevie Ballmer has a hard job. Wah wah.
How much does that bastard take home every day? Cry me a damn river. High pressure job? If he decides he can't handle it, he could quit today and live the rest of his life swimming in a Scrooge McDuck money pit.
Where in New Orleans are you going to land a C-17? Oh yeah, nowhere.
How many sorties does it take to evacuate 100,000 people with Chinooks? Let's see, if I remember correctly, they'll carry 50 troops with gear. So call that 70 people, assuming some are on stretchers. 70 into 100,000, that's...1400 sorties.
Where are you going to take them? Houston? Dallas? Birmingham? Each of those cities would be about five hours away by helicopter, give or take.
How do you handle the air traffic around the Superdome? That's not trivial.
We've got some transport helicopters, yes...but not nearly enough to solve this problem. And then, can you imagine the flak that would happen when one crashes?
Suffice it to say, the problem is a little bit more complex than "Well, just get some helicopters!"
"I don't like the Feds mandating things at the local level (it's called Republicanism)."
Uh, I think the word you're looking for is Federalism. You let me know when Congress starts remembering what that word means.
I bet he started sweating profusely and screaming "DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS!"
What a freakin' tool. Somebody put his ass back in the cage.
Yes, if you assume your point 1 and point 2, you get to point 3. The point is, those are really dumb assumptions.
Look, it's clear that I'm imposing on you. You haven't presented me with anything that bears further discussion...I'm sorry to have wasted your time. Go with God.
What an utterly un-convincing argument.
1) I have a rock in my pocket.
2) I have never been attacked by a tiger.
3) Therefore, this rock in my pocket protects me from tigers.
It is a simple matter to construct secular, humanist moral values. The existence of such morals proves nothing, other than that people are smart and can figure things out.
If you say that "I know objective values exist, because they're written in the Bible, and I know the Bible is true, because it was written by God, and I know that God exists, because objective values exist", your argument boils down to precisely what I figured it would: You're begging the question. You're setting up a tautology, not demonstrating the validity of your axioms, and proving that the sky is made of Kleenex.
You might have faith in God, and that's great. Your reasoning is sketchy, at the very best.
You have still provided no such proof. You persist in questioning MY relationship with God (although I've gone to some lengths to ensure that I was respecting YOUR relationship with God).
You have utterly failed to provide a rational basis for your belief in God, never mind Christianity.
I need no proof. I see God all around me. I see Him in the lives of the people around me. This is not rational, but it's every bit as important to my life as my rational faculties are.
I know my faith. I know my God. If you know yours, you're doing a remarkably poor job sharing your knowledge.
OK, pretend I'm a raving atheist. What is your proof? I did a Google search on the axiological argument, and got nothing germane.
State your case.
My belief in God is an article of faith, and requires no proof.
I'm still trying to figure out why YOU believe in God.
Why do you think I'm an agnostic? Seems like you are prone to making unwarranted assumptions. You might want to be careful of that. I've been a confirmed, practicing Methodist for 20 years. (That's since I was twelve.)
Of course it's natural to want to see evidence. It's also impossible to present evidence of God's existence.
In all my studies of religion and philosophy, it always comes down to one thing: Do you believe, or not?
If you've got a logical proof of God's existence, I'd love to see it.
Ontological argument...that which is greater than the greatest thing of which I can conceive....bleh. That is a tired crutch.
If you believe in God, believe in God. If you need proof of God's existence to believe in God, don't believe in God. I happen to believe that God would be quite annoyed with us if we wasted our phenomenally powerful synthetic reasoning skills on trying to prove His existence rather than, say, curing cancer or draining New Orleans.
I believe it is NOT rational to state A) God exists and B) Christianity is the one true religion, because you can't make that argument without begging the question. Note: I do not dispute your (or my) faith in God on this basis.
Dressing up religion in the clothing of science is silly. Dressing up science in the clothing of religion is equally silly. Thinking that one can explain one with the other is silly.
The Bible is not a book about how the Heavens go...it is a book about how to go to Heaven. (That's Galileo. He was very not popular with the religious figures of his day.)
I don't believe that you can use reason to demonstrate the existence of God. Nor do I think it is necessary to do so.
Christian Creationists are allowed to do whatever they want. However, unless they check their assertion that God is the answer to all unanswered questions, they don't have anything "scientific" to add to the discussion.
Please don't misunderstand me: If you are a Creationist, I respect that. You are entitled to whatever faith tradition feeds your soul, and I hope that you will forever strive to improve your relationship with and your understanding of God.
You must, however, accept that your relationship with God is not scientific. There is no scientific rationale for the existence of God.
"They only contradict if you take one set of assumptions."
Yeah: Like the assumption that the Bible is the literal Word of God, un-changed by 1600 years of human transcription and translation.
If you take it as a non-historical, non-scientific allegory, it is a perfectly serviceable creation myth, and does a rather good job at laying out the order of things at the beginning of our universe.
Uh, how?
Why do you need a model? Isn't everything contained right there in the first two chapters of Genesis?
Oh yeah, and while we're on the subject, which of the two contradictory creation stories do you discount?
"other than the fact that we're here instead of them, there's no reason to think that."
What other evidence do you need?
I didn't respond to your assertion, because frankly I more or less agree with you. I just think it's a bit disingenuous for you to criticize sound-bite science with a sound bite.
If you construed that as an attack, I think you're being pretty sensitive. Were I to attack you, you'd know it.
If your solution is "Investigate renewable energy sources, and invest in cleaner ways of producing the goods and services we today enjoy", I'm right there with you.
If your solution is "Immediately slash by 30% the CO2 emissions of major industrialized nations", I'm thinking that we're in the stratospheric cost sort of region.
It's interesting to note that, normalized against production, the US's output of pollutants and greenhouse gases is very similar, or lower than, other industrialized nations.
Why does China get a bye?
"Its not the federal governments responsiblity to plan cities and protect them from natural disasters"
Actually, that is one of the Federal Government's only responsibilities. You know, that whole "Provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare" schtick.