Hmmm. I hadn't come here looking for an argument (or abuse, those are other rooms altogether), but I found this to be an interesting take on my comment.
I value the environment as well, but given that a lot of what I read would constitute pulp fiction (literally - ha!) there is something to be said for recycling efforts, use of sustainable source forests and the like. I'm no paper industry shill and I'm sure as a whole they're responsible for a lot of pollution and resource consumption, but hopefully not as much as in the past.
Moving on to D and E there, I agree that in many cases, ebooks are fantastic. But my problem, as stated above, relatees to ownership and physical media. Not having ownership in many cases is a big problem for me. And I personally like perusing the stacks at a good library or book store. I read to experience things I can't otherwise do, and in many cases, because of how some of my reading selections tie into friends' recommendations or common activities, the reading or discussion afterwards makes memories too.
I value the emotional responses I feel from a good story, and I enjoy a good "popcorn Saturday" kind of book too. I know I can have that with ebooks, but the experiences surrounding them aren't the same. If I truly felt that ebooks would go ina direction allowing true ownership and fairly open/compatible standards for the readers/clients, I'd be much happier. but I don't believe we'll get that utopia. Not with the legacy business model mindsets at work...
And speaking of legacies, I've been working on a small collection of "personal touchstone" works in sci-fi, fantasy, and a little romance. I hope one day I can pass them on to my children. The older ones actually read a fair bit, and the baby will hopefully grow up with equal access to either media.
I agree that as e-media flourishes,costs and selection will go up. But that's my problem - I don't like the current state of compatibility-and-licensing restricted choices... I can buy a book and read it, annotate it, re-gift it, use it to level a table or sell it. Or shred it and line the hamster cage.
I don't see myself getting anywhere near that level of freedom with ebooks, mainly because many aren't sold, they're licensed, right? Which ties to my other point about limits - why is a technically unlimited resource being subject to artificial scarcity like that? Many of the items on offer from Overdrive (/shudder) are in one or two copy numbers. Adjust licensing to be more sane and we'll talk again...
I have a hard time believing POD will continue to be viable if the content purveyors have their way with pricing. Plus, what's the output like? Some books just need to be/books/ either because they're special reads or children's picture books, or for some other reason.
I like the idea of just-in-time production for physical things, but I think this isn't the best place for it. At least, not for someone like me who sees a book as more than a collection of data...
They *are* facing cuts, as is pretty much every other city entity here. Our library system is 20 branches strong, with phenomenal service and a good selection in physical media (books, mags, DVDs, etc.). To make up some of their shortfalls, the library has book sales, fundraisers, awareness campaigns and so on.
What scares me is what happens when the majority of new works have both formats, and the publishers or distributors are pushing e-media rather than physical. Will the costs to acquire a good collection skyrocket? Will some things *stop* being available in paper? Will the licensing terms become so onerous that the libraries bow out of the brick and mortar business?
That is my chief concern here - I love my library about as much as I love my used bookmine. If they can't maintain a good collection, will they turn into museums of ancient media?
I think I'm really afraid for what the ebook revolution is going to mean for readers like me. Nevermind the ownership of digital media (and what that really means these days).
My problem is what less printed material means for libraries, which is where I get almost all my print and audiobooks these days.
Sure, they have Overdrive for electronic checkout of e-media. But the selection my library currently offers stinks, and the number of copies is limited!
I hope in 10 years I can still get a nice fantasy romance to enjoy, or take my daughter for a readalong...
Why? What's pathetic about making rational choices? nschubach wants to play a game with his/her own time and chooses to optimise food runs in both a time and health-positive way and you complain? If I could do voices, I'd be saying, "Win freakin' win, baby!" in a solid Peter Griffin.
I personally like sandwiches so a lot of my snacking (whether gaming or not) is from that food group. But it's nice to have something pretty tasty and filling that won't get everywhere when playing.
Halcyon, I can't find a way to contact you (no email nor active journal) and I wanted to ask you about your book rec in your sig, "Give Up The Ghost".
I read it this week and liked it. Just curious what about it was enough to get you to sig it. If you want to discuss, please reply here or to my email (on my profile). If not, no worries. I still enjoyed the book, though it ended about 5 pages sooner than I thought it would...
Also, you mention in your "Annoying" journal how you dislike obfuscated email addys. But you hide yours completely?:3
I have a Mazda RX-8 with TPMS and it does not come with run-flats. It also doesn't have a spare. What it does have is a lunchbox-sized tire repair kit. I'm not sure if I'm happy about this or not.
OT1H, it saves a lot of weight and room and the tires are normal, common, decently-priced affairs. OTOH, not every puncture can be patched and I sure as hell am not leaving my new(ish) car in a bad part of town if I get a flat. The sidewalls are short and stiff on these particular tires so I guess I'll have to drive slowly until I can find a good place to park...
*I* care, simply because sometimes, I like to walk through my yard to get the mail, or to talk to a neighbor, or when taking groceries in from the car. Collecting dog poop in my shoes or toes is not something that adds to the experience of owning a yard.
Also, there are times when I can smell it even without standing in it. Or hows about when my mulching mower tries to mulch a big pile? It gets in the wheels and sometimes the clippings bag which I have to empty manually. Ewww!
I don't own a dog and any dog poop in my yard is someone else's mess that never should have been left there. I don't know how many times I've watched someone walking their dog stop and wait while Fido leaves a present behind. Strays are one thing but anyone with their pet that does that needs to wake up to a mailbox full of dog poop (sorry for all the poop - work filters FTL).
But, but... Was *Pepsi's* reason for not breaking the seal because of the expected legal hassle, or because they had tried Coke Zero and found it... less than tasty?
I'm not going to jump down Kneo's throat for the "pass on" comment. I misunderstood his point as well, and given that a previous poster had indicated advice to CREATING an online identity in your real name, it made sense to connect the dots in a way that suggested Kneo took a pass on candidates without such identity.
HOWEVER, I *am* going to get in on the "(could | couldn't) care less thing. I used to say "could" myself and my Mom kept correcting me. My rationale? I *could* care even less about you/issue/event/etc. but I can't be arsed to ATM. *That's* how little I care about it.
But these days I go with the flow and say couldn't.
People in sports cars *are* smug, but then again, we don't spend all day trying to prove to the world how much we love the world.
In fact, can a few more of you order this kit / buy hybrids / take public transportation and balance me out? Despite displacing only 1.3 litres, my motor's motor is still pretty fuel-hungry, especially when pushed hard. Thank you!
As I mentioned earlier, I'm getting clued here. It seems the argument isn't so much about belief in the spiritual, it's what effect such beliefs have on day to day life and actions taken by a believer. See, I'm learning!
[...]there would be no "believers" trying to achieve martyrdom[...], some others want to forbid the teaching in schools of very well-tested scientific ideas, [...]others think soul-related myths are a good reason to invade very distant countries[...]
Please don't misunderstand - I find extremism troubling, and when that extremism runs counter to the very beliefs the extremists claim to be upholding, it's abhorrent.
As for smoking versus anti-smoking, isn't this debate settled firmly in the physical realm? Anyone who can claim with a straight face that smoking doesn't have negative effects (health, hygiene, odor, etc.) that shouldn't be imposed on others is *ahem* blowing smoke. Do to yourself what you will but respect others, please.
I promise to check that out soon. In the meantime, by exclusivity I meant, can't a faithful person also employ the sciences? Or is that Dawkin's point?
I wound up with a wad o' mod points for my original post. I'd hit you with some upmods but I can't for obvious reasons.
That said, I still get the difference. Yes, you are correct that a lot of what we rely on can't be directly observed personally. But with the physical, we've learned it's good enough to apply the scientific method, hammer out the hypotheses and theorems and at some point accept them. Yes, sometimes we find out we were wrong, but for everyday living, the rules are well-known and most of us have personal experience with same.
It's the fact that physical things are still testable by people that separates it from the spiritual. Even if I don't know exactly how an internal combustion motor works, I trust, based on decades of secondhand and years of firsthand experience that, if there's fuel, spark and rotation when I turn the key, the car goes zoom-zoom. (I'm sorry, I just bought a Mazda...)
There's no practical way to test the spiritual, 'cept for dying and seeing what happens. But I'm not willing to sign up for such a test. So it's faith for me until I shuffle off this mortal coil.
[...]I applaud you, and as ironic as it may seem, you may be one of the more rational people here.
and
So religion or the lack thereof shouldn't have a place in the reality beyond the self.
I think you might stop clapping in a sec. I think I'm starting to understand this whole faith versus science thing. You and I agree on the fact that the spiritual kinda has to be on faith BECAUSE we can't observe it, and the physical world is here for us to test in four dimensions.
What you said about religion not having a place beyond the self is something I can debate however. While I trust the laws of space and time to get me through a day physically, I make decisions based on a mix of intellect, experience, and FAITH.
I could choose to do or not do certain things and intellectually and experientially I know what to expect as the outcome. But ultimately faith helps guide a lot of my decision making. I believe I'm "doing the right thing" per my faith and while I'm at it, I'm trying not to make the world worse for anyone.
I know I can't change the whole world through my actions, but thanks to a poster I saw recently, I know I can change it for one person at a time. I'm generally a nice, calm guy and I don't like strife. I'm a negotiator and peacemaker by nature but cross me (I'm looking at you Sprint) and I can go on the warpath.
I'm not perfect and never claim to be. I'm not as "faithful" or "observant" as perhaps I could be but I have a very strong moral compass and rarely have trouble sleeping at night or looking at myself in the mirror.
Interestingly enough, I play a lawful-good-style healer in my MMO of choice and my guild-mates probably wonder what kind of a sick sonuvabitch I am in real life I'm so nice online. Nope - on and offline I'm pretty much the same. Well, less furry IRL.
Now, I expect a new round of flames to come my way. I welcome them because I'm starting to feel like I'm getting somewhere with all this! TIA!
My answer to why God bothered with us at all is this: I believe what we're in now is essentially an instance of SimUniverse running in whatever context He has handy.
IOW, He set up the rulesets (physical, moral, spiritual, etc.), an initial state (see cop-out, above) and turned it on. I do believe He messes with the model from time to time but on the whole it runs as it was configured to. This world-view obviates the need for me to believe anything particular about God's desires on a personal level (that was odd to write). Scripture addresses some Godly characteristics but I bet it's a fraction of a percent of the real deal.
Let me say it this way - if *I* were infinitely powerful and could summon up whole Universes on a whim, I think it would be very fun and enlightening to try several different scenarios and see what cool things shake out. Experimenting on a cosmological scale if you will.
At the end of my lifespan, one of three things will happen:
* I die and cease to be. In this case, everything I knew about the physical world was true but I was wrong about the spiritual. Sucks to be non-existant but while I was going I could start fires, drive cars and breathe mountain air, all cool applications of the physical.
* I die and my faith turns out to be correct. Physical world 1, Spiritual world 1. Nothing changes about my temporal experience.
* I die and my faith happens to piss off the $deity who was *really* in charge. Oh snap! The afterlife is sure gonna suck now, but again, physical world unaffected.
See, I don't get why belief in the spiritual has to negate adherence to the physical. Somebody more "fanatical" than me, please tell me how I'm doing it wrong!
I hope I'm not misunderstanding you here, so if I'm off-base please correct me.
Are you saying that, because I accept one datum as fact based on faith (souls) that every other judgment I make or have made is worthless?
I get what you're trying to say, but I'm not making decisions and analyses about the nature of the physical world. That's all laid out in the sciences. I'm not disagreeing with them. I see you like XKCD, and Randall said it best: "Science - It works, bitches".
I'm making a call on something we can't (currently) objectively measure - the spiritual realm. If you can point me towards a means of observing the spiritual world or disproving its existence, then let's dance. Until then, why does it matter?
I'm honestly trying to understand why there's so much animosity on this topic. If I told you I believed that evolution worked (but NOT that we spontaneously evolved!) would that help?
Maybe I'm alone on this - are other religious folks diametrically opposed to science? What kind of geek would I be without science and tech?
Does the man barge in and take over the proceedings? Or was he invited to present his views to an indifferent or potentially hostile audience?
I mentioned to another poster that I have no problem with others' opinions, if presented calmly and fairly.
As for your wiki, is that from personal experience/research or is that from a larger behavioral tradition?
I'd definitely say I'm SOM because I generally have high resists to outside influence but I can also admit when I'm wrong/mistaken about something and absorb a new perspective. (For the rest of you, give it up, I'm not going to abandon my faith over a/. rant)
I'll admit I only skimmed Dawkins' website but the one article I dug into showed him in the same boat - he has a position and any time he tries to gently espouse it he gets flamed.
Your point on being pro-life thus finding pro-choice arguments difficult to hear doesn't stand with me. I'm open-minded enough that if someone wants to present a world-view I don't agree with IN A CALM, INFORMATIVE MANNER, I can deal. I'd like the chance to do the same.
Honestly, zealots of any stripe give me the willies because I think they often do more to weaken their own positions.
And I'll end with a cop-out: I'm of the belief that if God wanted the Universe to look billions of years old, He could pull that off. Part of the whole "testing the faith test" I suppose. And to be honest, I don't spend a lot of time agonizing over it.
Clearly, science works. Physical laws work. However this neat and tidy framework came to be, it's easier to accept its operation than fight about its origins. Yet I don't believe that scientific principle excludes faith. To me, this wondrous universal Machine and all its infinite and infinitesimal parts is just really staggeringly awe-inspiring.
I know this may not be the best spot in the thread for this, but...
Why does it matter if some people choose to believe in a soul? Do you have "religious wingnuts" crawling up your ass all day about converting, thus the bitterness towards their faith?
Every time a topic like this comes up a flood of "sound thinkers" appears, attempting to wash the "believers" off the internet.
Seriously, why does it matter to (collective) you? And do you ever stop to think your attempts at rationalization are as annoying to them as their proselytizing is to you?
Do these concepts of faith and science need to be mutually exclusive?
Slashdot Mirror
Hmmm. I hadn't come here looking for an argument (or abuse, those are other rooms altogether), but I found this to be an interesting take on my comment.
I value the environment as well, but given that a lot of what I read would constitute pulp fiction (literally - ha!) there is something to be said for recycling efforts, use of sustainable source forests and the like. I'm no paper industry shill and I'm sure as a whole they're responsible for a lot of pollution and resource consumption, but hopefully not as much as in the past.
Moving on to D and E there, I agree that in many cases, ebooks are fantastic. But my problem, as stated above, relatees to ownership and physical media. Not having ownership in many cases is a big problem for me. And I personally like perusing the stacks at a good library or book store. I read to experience things I can't otherwise do, and in many cases, because of how some of my reading selections tie into friends' recommendations or common activities, the reading or discussion afterwards makes memories too.
I value the emotional responses I feel from a good story, and I enjoy a good "popcorn Saturday" kind of book too. I know I can have that with ebooks, but the experiences surrounding them aren't the same. If I truly felt that ebooks would go ina direction allowing true ownership and fairly open/compatible standards for the readers/clients, I'd be much happier. but I don't believe we'll get that utopia. Not with the legacy business model mindsets at work...
And speaking of legacies, I've been working on a small collection of "personal touchstone" works in sci-fi, fantasy, and a little romance. I hope one day I can pass them on to my children. The older ones actually read a fair bit, and the baby will hopefully grow up with equal access to either media.
I agree that as e-media flourishes,costs and selection will go up. But that's my problem - I don't like the current state of compatibility-and-licensing restricted choices... I can buy a book and read it, annotate it, re-gift it, use it to level a table or sell it. Or shred it and line the hamster cage.
I don't see myself getting anywhere near that level of freedom with ebooks, mainly because many aren't sold, they're licensed, right? Which ties to my other point about limits - why is a technically unlimited resource being subject to artificial scarcity like that? Many of the items on offer from Overdrive (/shudder) are in one or two copy numbers. Adjust licensing to be more sane and we'll talk again...
I have a hard time believing POD will continue to be viable if the content purveyors have their way with pricing. Plus, what's the output like? Some books just need to be /books/ either because they're special reads or children's picture books, or for some other reason.
I like the idea of just-in-time production for physical things, but I think this isn't the best place for it. At least, not for someone like me who sees a book as more than a collection of data...
They *are* facing cuts, as is pretty much every other city entity here. Our library system is 20 branches strong, with phenomenal service and a good selection in physical media (books, mags, DVDs, etc.). To make up some of their shortfalls, the library has book sales, fundraisers, awareness campaigns and so on.
What scares me is what happens when the majority of new works have both formats, and the publishers or distributors are pushing e-media rather than physical. Will the costs to acquire a good collection skyrocket? Will some things *stop* being available in paper? Will the licensing terms become so onerous that the libraries bow out of the brick and mortar business?
That is my chief concern here - I love my library about as much as I love my used bookmine. If they can't maintain a good collection, will they turn into museums of ancient media?
My problem is what less printed material means for libraries, which is where I get almost all my print and audiobooks these days. Sure, they have Overdrive for electronic checkout of e-media. But the selection my library currently offers stinks, and the number of copies is limited!
I hope in 10 years I can still get a nice fantasy romance to enjoy, or take my daughter for a readalong...
Why? What's pathetic about making rational choices? nschubach wants to play a game with his/her own time and chooses to optimise food runs in both a time and health-positive way and you complain? If I could do voices, I'd be saying, "Win freakin' win, baby!" in a solid Peter Griffin.
I personally like sandwiches so a lot of my snacking (whether gaming or not) is from that food group. But it's nice to have something pretty tasty and filling that won't get everywhere when playing.
Do you like sandwiches?
Awesome, just awesome! <3
First Ubuntu, now luggage?! Awesome!
Halcyon, I can't find a way to contact you (no email nor active journal) and I wanted to ask you about your book rec in your sig, "Give Up The Ghost".
I read it this week and liked it. Just curious what about it was enough to get you to sig it. If you want to discuss, please reply here or to my email (on my profile). If not, no worries. I still enjoyed the book, though it ended about 5 pages sooner than I thought it would...
Also, you mention in your "Annoying" journal how you dislike obfuscated email addys. But you hide yours completely? :3
As always, the solution lies in the middle: you should neither squeeze nor open your hands, but simply hold it gently :-P
Thank you for that beautiful thought - you just made my morning! /cheer
Sanity check FAILED when this idea was proposed.
I have a Mazda RX-8 with TPMS and it does not come with run-flats. It also doesn't have a spare. What it does have is a lunchbox-sized tire repair kit. I'm not sure if I'm happy about this or not.
OT1H, it saves a lot of weight and room and the tires are normal, common, decently-priced affairs. OTOH, not every puncture can be patched and I sure as hell am not leaving my new(ish) car in a bad part of town if I get a flat. The sidewalls are short and stiff on these particular tires so I guess I'll have to drive slowly until I can find a good place to park...
Also, there are times when I can smell it even without standing in it. Or hows about when my mulching mower tries to mulch a big pile? It gets in the wheels and sometimes the clippings bag which I have to empty manually. Ewww!
I don't own a dog and any dog poop in my yard is someone else's mess that never should have been left there. I don't know how many times I've watched someone walking their dog stop and wait while Fido leaves a present behind. Strays are one thing but anyone with their pet that does that needs to wake up to a mailbox full of dog poop (sorry for all the poop - work filters FTL).
But, but... Was *Pepsi's* reason for not breaking the seal because of the expected legal hassle, or because they had tried Coke Zero and found it... less than tasty?
I'm not going to jump down Kneo's throat for the "pass on" comment. I misunderstood his point as well, and given that a previous poster had indicated advice to CREATING an online identity in your real name, it made sense to connect the dots in a way that suggested Kneo took a pass on candidates without such identity.
HOWEVER, I *am* going to get in on the "(could | couldn't) care less thing. I used to say "could" myself and my Mom kept correcting me. My rationale? I *could* care even less about you/issue/event/etc. but I can't be arsed to ATM. *That's* how little I care about it.
But these days I go with the flow and say couldn't.
The answer to your question may be this South Park episode. It's all about the hybrid hype.
People in sports cars *are* smug, but then again, we don't spend all day trying to prove to the world how much we love the world.
In fact, can a few more of you order this kit / buy hybrids / take public transportation and balance me out? Despite displacing only 1.3 litres, my motor's motor is still pretty fuel-hungry, especially when pushed hard. Thank you!
[...]there would be no "believers" trying to achieve martyrdom[...], some others want to forbid the teaching in schools of very well-tested scientific ideas, [...]others think soul-related myths are a good reason to invade very distant countries[...]
Please don't misunderstand - I find extremism troubling, and when that extremism runs counter to the very beliefs the extremists claim to be upholding, it's abhorrent.
As for smoking versus anti-smoking, isn't this debate settled firmly in the physical realm? Anyone who can claim with a straight face that smoking doesn't have negative effects (health, hygiene, odor, etc.) that shouldn't be imposed on others is *ahem* blowing smoke. Do to yourself what you will but respect others, please.
I promise to check that out soon. In the meantime, by exclusivity I meant, can't a faithful person also employ the sciences? Or is that Dawkin's point?
I wound up with a wad o' mod points for my original post. I'd hit you with some upmods but I can't for obvious reasons.
That said, I still get the difference. Yes, you are correct that a lot of what we rely on can't be directly observed personally. But with the physical, we've learned it's good enough to apply the scientific method, hammer out the hypotheses and theorems and at some point accept them. Yes, sometimes we find out we were wrong, but for everyday living, the rules are well-known and most of us have personal experience with same.
It's the fact that physical things are still testable by people that separates it from the spiritual. Even if I don't know exactly how an internal combustion motor works, I trust, based on decades of secondhand and years of firsthand experience that, if there's fuel, spark and rotation when I turn the key, the car goes zoom-zoom. (I'm sorry, I just bought a Mazda...)
There's no practical way to test the spiritual, 'cept for dying and seeing what happens. But I'm not willing to sign up for such a test. So it's faith for me until I shuffle off this mortal coil.
[...]I applaud you, and as ironic as it may seem, you may be one of the more rational people here.
and
So religion or the lack thereof shouldn't have a place in the reality beyond the self.
I think you might stop clapping in a sec. I think I'm starting to understand this whole faith versus science thing. You and I agree on the fact that the spiritual kinda has to be on faith BECAUSE we can't observe it, and the physical world is here for us to test in four dimensions.
What you said about religion not having a place beyond the self is something I can debate however. While I trust the laws of space and time to get me through a day physically, I make decisions based on a mix of intellect, experience, and FAITH.
I could choose to do or not do certain things and intellectually and experientially I know what to expect as the outcome. But ultimately faith helps guide a lot of my decision making. I believe I'm "doing the right thing" per my faith and while I'm at it, I'm trying not to make the world worse for anyone.
I know I can't change the whole world through my actions, but thanks to a poster I saw recently, I know I can change it for one person at a time. I'm generally a nice, calm guy and I don't like strife. I'm a negotiator and peacemaker by nature but cross me (I'm looking at you Sprint) and I can go on the warpath.
I'm not perfect and never claim to be. I'm not as "faithful" or "observant" as perhaps I could be but I have a very strong moral compass and rarely have trouble sleeping at night or looking at myself in the mirror.
Interestingly enough, I play a lawful-good-style healer in my MMO of choice and my guild-mates probably wonder what kind of a sick sonuvabitch I am in real life I'm so nice online. Nope - on and offline I'm pretty much the same. Well, less furry IRL.
Now, I expect a new round of flames to come my way. I welcome them because I'm starting to feel like I'm getting somewhere with all this! TIA!
I was never angry ^^
My answer to why God bothered with us at all is this: I believe what we're in now is essentially an instance of SimUniverse running in whatever context He has handy.
IOW, He set up the rulesets (physical, moral, spiritual, etc.), an initial state (see cop-out, above) and turned it on. I do believe He messes with the model from time to time but on the whole it runs as it was configured to. This world-view obviates the need for me to believe anything particular about God's desires on a personal level (that was odd to write). Scripture addresses some Godly characteristics but I bet it's a fraction of a percent of the real deal.
Let me say it this way - if *I* were infinitely powerful and could summon up whole Universes on a whim, I think it would be very fun and enlightening to try several different scenarios and see what cool things shake out. Experimenting on a cosmological scale if you will.
At the end of my lifespan, one of three things will happen:
* I die and cease to be. In this case, everything I knew about the physical world was true but I was wrong about the spiritual. Sucks to be non-existant but while I was going I could start fires, drive cars and breathe mountain air, all cool applications of the physical.
* I die and my faith turns out to be correct. Physical world 1, Spiritual world 1. Nothing changes about my temporal experience.
* I die and my faith happens to piss off the $deity who was *really* in charge. Oh snap! The afterlife is sure gonna suck now, but again, physical world unaffected.
See, I don't get why belief in the spiritual has to negate adherence to the physical. Somebody more "fanatical" than me, please tell me how I'm doing it wrong!
I hope I'm not misunderstanding you here, so if I'm off-base please correct me.
Are you saying that, because I accept one datum as fact based on faith (souls) that every other judgment I make or have made is worthless?
I get what you're trying to say, but I'm not making decisions and analyses about the nature of the physical world. That's all laid out in the sciences. I'm not disagreeing with them. I see you like XKCD, and Randall said it best: "Science - It works, bitches".
I'm making a call on something we can't (currently) objectively measure - the spiritual realm. If you can point me towards a means of observing the spiritual world or disproving its existence, then let's dance. Until then, why does it matter?
I'm honestly trying to understand why there's so much animosity on this topic. If I told you I believed that evolution worked (but NOT that we spontaneously evolved!) would that help?
Maybe I'm alone on this - are other religious folks diametrically opposed to science? What kind of geek would I be without science and tech?
Does the man barge in and take over the proceedings? Or was he invited to present his views to an indifferent or potentially hostile audience?
I mentioned to another poster that I have no problem with others' opinions, if presented calmly and fairly.
As for your wiki, is that from personal experience/research or is that from a larger behavioral tradition?
I'd definitely say I'm SOM because I generally have high resists to outside influence but I can also admit when I'm wrong/mistaken about something and absorb a new perspective. (For the rest of you, give it up, I'm not going to abandon my faith over a /. rant)
I'll admit I only skimmed Dawkins' website but the one article I dug into showed him in the same boat - he has a position and any time he tries to gently espouse it he gets flamed.
Your point on being pro-life thus finding pro-choice arguments difficult to hear doesn't stand with me. I'm open-minded enough that if someone wants to present a world-view I don't agree with IN A CALM, INFORMATIVE MANNER, I can deal. I'd like the chance to do the same.
Honestly, zealots of any stripe give me the willies because I think they often do more to weaken their own positions.
And I'll end with a cop-out: I'm of the belief that if God wanted the Universe to look billions of years old, He could pull that off. Part of the whole "testing the faith test" I suppose. And to be honest, I don't spend a lot of time agonizing over it.
Clearly, science works. Physical laws work. However this neat and tidy framework came to be, it's easier to accept its operation than fight about its origins. Yet I don't believe that scientific principle excludes faith. To me, this wondrous universal Machine and all its infinite and infinitesimal parts is just really staggeringly awe-inspiring.
I am a USian, and I skipped both parties' conventions, but not because of any affinity or aversion to politico-religious fervor.
I'd prefer to read a simple platform summary than wade through hours of, let's face it, acting.
I know this may not be the best spot in the thread for this, but...
Why does it matter if some people choose to believe in a soul? Do you have "religious wingnuts" crawling up your ass all day about converting, thus the bitterness towards their faith?
Every time a topic like this comes up a flood of "sound thinkers" appears, attempting to wash the "believers" off the internet.
Seriously, why does it matter to (collective) you? And do you ever stop to think your attempts at rationalization are as annoying to them as their proselytizing is to you?
Do these concepts of faith and science need to be mutually exclusive?
Peace,
karma-that-fears-not-the-mod