Abandoning religion in favor of reason is like abandoning hammers because you like screwdrivers better. Seems to me like a wise person would look at the fact that religious modes of thought exist in every culture around the world, and understand that there is value in other thought processes than reductionistic rationality.
There is no conflict between science and religion. Why are people so invested in creating one?
Because if I get a 10% bonus, that 10% doesn't compound when I get a 3% raise.
You can jigger the numbers any number of ways to come up with scenarios where one or the other is more advantageous, but base salary raises compound over time and bonuses do not.
There are lots of "illegitemate uses" for just about anything you can think of. What's your point?
Doing illegitimate things may indeed be illegal, immoral, and fattening. Using tools that may be used for illegitimate things are nobody's business but the tool user's.
Don't bet on it. Historically, Apple has kept similar price points and updated capabilities. Of course, that's not always true, but it holds more often than not.
Why is it important what a majority of cell phone users want? Why would one only cater to that market rather than, say, the market that's willing to spend $400 on a phone?
I happen to map smart==competent&&capable, because I think somebody with a high powered brain that can't actually DO anything isn't particularly useful. But that's just me.
"science can't escape the fact that ultimately it is merely a *description* of the universe it doesn't tell us the true nature of the universe or even what 'nature' is"
Why does it need to do any of those things? Isn't it enough that science can cure disease and put people on other celestial bodies? I think science is doing just fine without navel-gazing about what "nature" is. Nature simply "is", and science describes it with ever-increasing subtlety and predictiveness.
Religion is great, too, which is why I'm also a religious person.
But if I went to Norway, it'd be up to me to figure it out. I'd have to learn all that stuff, to get along with society. There is nothing wrong with that! If I want to live somewhere, it's my responsibility to adapt to my new home, not my new home's responsibility to adapt to me.
But just because a candidate makes centrist mouth-noises in the general election, doesn't mean they will actually execute centrist policy. That's the problem. The primary system forces candidates to out-extreme each other, and then they have to run to the center for the general election. They can't actually participate in a conversation about what the policies ought to be.
Except that we're not really talking about any religion in particular, but in belief in God in general...so I'm not sure your point is germane.
(well, I've been discussing belief in God in general...my debating partner seems to be hung up on wingnut evangelical Je-sus-sah (pronounced with three syllables) young-Earth-creationist types.)
Slashdot Mirror
Abandoning religion in favor of reason is like abandoning hammers because you like screwdrivers better. Seems to me like a wise person would look at the fact that religious modes of thought exist in every culture around the world, and understand that there is value in other thought processes than reductionistic rationality.
There is no conflict between science and religion. Why are people so invested in creating one?
So O'Reilly shouldn't update their book? What's your point here?
If you want to buy it, do so. If not, don't.
Because if I get a 10% bonus, that 10% doesn't compound when I get a 3% raise.
You can jigger the numbers any number of ways to come up with scenarios where one or the other is more advantageous, but base salary raises compound over time and bonuses do not.
I hope nobody explains to you how air brakes on semi trucks work. You might panic.
There are lots of "illegitemate uses" for just about anything you can think of. What's your point?
Doing illegitimate things may indeed be illegal, immoral, and fattening. Using tools that may be used for illegitimate things are nobody's business but the tool user's.
OK, people have called TR3's many things, but "operational"? Not if the Lucas electrical system has anything to say about it.
Vista has features? Who knew?
Don't bet on it. Historically, Apple has kept similar price points and updated capabilities. Of course, that's not always true, but it holds more often than not.
>>>--joke-->
*FWOOOOOOSH!*
0
--you
A
Why is it important what a majority of cell phone users want? Why would one only cater to that market rather than, say, the market that's willing to spend $400 on a phone?
What do you think will change?
I've got a hint for you: Nothing.
SPLITTER!
Wow, do I ever disagree with that.
Fortunately, so does my wife. : )
I take a functional approach to intelligence. I know people with a lot of brain power that don't seem very smart to me...
I happen to map smart==competent&&capable, because I think somebody with a high powered brain that can't actually DO anything isn't particularly useful. But that's just me.
Smart!=educated.
Replying to your sig:
"Why do death penalty advocates mostly oppose abortion while vegans mostly support it?"
Because the issues have almost nothing to do with one another?
"science can't escape the fact that ultimately it is merely a *description* of the universe it doesn't tell us the true nature of the universe or even what 'nature' is"
Why does it need to do any of those things? Isn't it enough that science can cure disease and put people on other celestial bodies? I think science is doing just fine without navel-gazing about what "nature" is. Nature simply "is", and science describes it with ever-increasing subtlety and predictiveness.
Religion is great, too, which is why I'm also a religious person.
That's funny, I just got my kicker check from the State of Oregon. They do in fact refund tax surpluses to the citizenry.
I wish it were more common.
But if I went to Norway, it'd be up to me to figure it out. I'd have to learn all that stuff, to get along with society. There is nothing wrong with that! If I want to live somewhere, it's my responsibility to adapt to my new home, not my new home's responsibility to adapt to me.
"Stop making excuses and just admit that it's Science basket 1 - God 0 in the weather department." ...? Wow. Did I kick your dog or something?
I haven't read the Eddas, but I have read some Norse mythology.
I'm not sure who it is you're arguing with, but it must be somebody who espouses a different set of beliefs than I do.
But just because a candidate makes centrist mouth-noises in the general election, doesn't mean they will actually execute centrist policy. That's the problem. The primary system forces candidates to out-extreme each other, and then they have to run to the center for the general election. They can't actually participate in a conversation about what the policies ought to be.
Except that we're not really talking about any religion in particular, but in belief in God in general...so I'm not sure your point is germane.
(well, I've been discussing belief in God in general...my debating partner seems to be hung up on wingnut evangelical Je-sus-sah (pronounced with three syllables) young-Earth-creationist types.)
You're making a "No True Scotsman" argument. If one is civilized, one is not a believer. If one is a believer, one must not be civilized.
So, again, we're back to your assertion that you're just smarter than believers.
I think I've gone about as far with this as I care to.