No, it's calling a spade a spade. The holy books of all three Abrahamic religions contain multiple, specific exhortations to do evil, and hundreds of millions have paid the price.
Look, if you talk to a religious person you may very well find that they can intelligently evaluate different views. But you might the opposite. I think the former situation is better. It would still be better even if the person is otherwise nice and great. So what?
Why is it inconsistent? His bigotry is probably cultural rather than religious, and was probably also impacted by an extreme reduction in the the Jewish population during his lifetime.
The whole point of humanism is that the moral imperative not to hurt, steal lie, etc. actually comes directly from our humanity. Hurting, lying and stealing are bad, not because Jesus said so, but because they are actually bad for human beings. Those actions harm the victim first, and then percolate through their relationships to harm society as a whole by reducing our ability to work together towards common ends.
The many reasons not to hurt, steal or lie all basically derive from empathy (I can tell you don't like this), analogy to the self (I wouldn't like it either) or appeal to logic (we have to work together to live and eat, civilization wouldn't work if we were killing each other right and left, stealing leads to net loss in economic activity).
In other words, tell them not to hurt because they don't want to be hurt themselves, because it will make them feel guilty, because they will get in trouble and because it reduces the capacity of civilization to provide. Tell them not to steal because they wouldn't want to be stolen from, because it will make them feel guilty, because they will get in trouble and because it lessens the ability of civilization to provide. Tell them not to lie because they would feel bad if lied to, because they could get in trouble, because it will make them feel guilty and because it harms the cohesion of society.
None of these reasons exist outside of the human mind - there is no objective, external standard - but they are reason enough.
It's especially bizarre since the Abrahamic religions clearly describe themselves as derivative works, and in most places were established by fiat rather than organically. Personally, if I learned that my ancestors were subjugated and forced to adopt this new religion, I'd be pissed.
The content of such a class, at least, is already part of many education standards. In California for example the key material pertaining to the world's major religions is all covered as the genesis of those religions is reached in the (basically chronological) study of history. You can see it all in the standard for grades 6-9.
I don't think you have to see "the truth" to realize there's a problem with relegating all disagreement to mortal insult. That was Freddybear's point: a bunch of religions consider all disagreement as a heresy that must be burnt out.
Some religions aren't like that; they consider disagreement as disagreement and might try to resolve the disagreement using logic. I think the Baha'i faith is one.
Your comment is irrelevant. The parent started out with "if somebody has studied evolution closely and still rejects it an essential underpinning of modern science..."
I have a sister who would be atheist but she doesn't want to be associated with people like that.
And that's why it doesn't matter. She already is an atheist. It's determined by what you actually believe in your head, not by what you tell people to avoid conflict.
I sometimes wish we could take away from people technologies dependent on science they repudiate. I bet the developed world fanatics would be begging to be let in to the non-believers' club in five minutes.
It's true that a lot of people reexamine their childhood beliefs critically and continue on with them, but it's also true that you get very few who switch away to another religion after close examining.
What a confusing sentence. In any event, you actually get tons and tons who abandon their superstitions. That's why 20% of US adults are now atheists or "not religious."
There are some tasks the touch screen for which the touch screen is better. I've been using a touchscreen Lenovo all-in-one to generate ground truth data for computer vision projects (manually segmenting objects, etc.). For really high precision work like that, the touchscreen is faster.
The gorilla arm thing is true though, it's incredibly strenuous to use for hours at a time.
As far as I know every instant messaging client I've ever used has this functionality. Even AIM could do it. Presumably, all of those simply took the idea from IRC.
Unlike companies such as Microsoft, Apple or even Facebook, Google is mainly identified with "Googlers," that is their engineers, rather than with the leader of the corporation. Google's engineers add creepy features because they actually think it's great if their friends can all track their locations in real time.
Slashdot Mirror
At least, the principle is held in principle. As you said, most of the fundies aren't particularly well read, in any canon.
No, it's calling a spade a spade. The holy books of all three Abrahamic religions contain multiple, specific exhortations to do evil, and hundreds of millions have paid the price.
Look, if you talk to a religious person you may very well find that they can intelligently evaluate different views. But you might the opposite. I think the former situation is better. It would still be better even if the person is otherwise nice and great. So what?
Why is it inconsistent? His bigotry is probably cultural rather than religious, and was probably also impacted by an extreme reduction in the the Jewish population during his lifetime.
The whole point of humanism is that the moral imperative not to hurt, steal lie, etc. actually comes directly from our humanity. Hurting, lying and stealing are bad, not because Jesus said so, but because they are actually bad for human beings. Those actions harm the victim first, and then percolate through their relationships to harm society as a whole by reducing our ability to work together towards common ends.
The many reasons not to hurt, steal or lie all basically derive from empathy (I can tell you don't like this), analogy to the self (I wouldn't like it either) or appeal to logic (we have to work together to live and eat, civilization wouldn't work if we were killing each other right and left, stealing leads to net loss in economic activity).
In other words, tell them not to hurt because they don't want to be hurt themselves, because it will make them feel guilty, because they will get in trouble and because it reduces the capacity of civilization to provide. Tell them not to steal because they wouldn't want to be stolen from, because it will make them feel guilty, because they will get in trouble and because it lessens the ability of civilization to provide. Tell them not to lie because they would feel bad if lied to, because they could get in trouble, because it will make them feel guilty and because it harms the cohesion of society.
None of these reasons exist outside of the human mind - there is no objective, external standard - but they are reason enough.
It's especially bizarre since the Abrahamic religions clearly describe themselves as derivative works, and in most places were established by fiat rather than organically. Personally, if I learned that my ancestors were subjugated and forced to adopt this new religion, I'd be pissed.
The content of such a class, at least, is already part of many education standards. In California for example the key material pertaining to the world's major religions is all covered as the genesis of those religions is reached in the (basically chronological) study of history. You can see it all in the standard for grades 6-9.
I don't think you have to see "the truth" to realize there's a problem with relegating all disagreement to mortal insult. That was Freddybear's point: a bunch of religions consider all disagreement as a heresy that must be burnt out.
Some religions aren't like that; they consider disagreement as disagreement and might try to resolve the disagreement using logic. I think the Baha'i faith is one.
Your comment is irrelevant. The parent started out with "if somebody has studied evolution closely and still rejects it an essential underpinning of modern science..."
P.S. You are.
I have a sister who would be atheist but she doesn't want to be associated with people like that.
And that's why it doesn't matter. She already is an atheist. It's determined by what you actually believe in your head, not by what you tell people to avoid conflict.
I sometimes wish we could take away from people technologies dependent on science they repudiate. I bet the developed world fanatics would be begging to be let in to the non-believers' club in five minutes.
I don't think you have to call it Bayesianism. We can just call it math.
It's also about the misconception that knowledge is just true belief.
It's true that a lot of people reexamine their childhood beliefs critically and continue on with them, but it's also true that you get very few who switch away to another religion after close examining.
What a confusing sentence. In any event, you actually get tons and tons who abandon their superstitions. That's why 20% of US adults are now atheists or "not religious."
No, just that they shouldn't form a basis for policy.
Calvinists do believe in predestination. The Calvinist elect are chosen (by their god) prenatally.
And around the Bay we have the Alameda County Computer Resource Center. They build computers to give away to folks in need, to "narrow the digital divide."
There are some tasks the touch screen for which the touch screen is better. I've been using a touchscreen Lenovo all-in-one to generate ground truth data for computer vision projects (manually segmenting objects, etc.). For really high precision work like that, the touchscreen is faster.
The gorilla arm thing is true though, it's incredibly strenuous to use for hours at a time.
As far as I know every instant messaging client I've ever used has this functionality. Even AIM could do it. Presumably, all of those simply took the idea from IRC.
So your argument is that the margin of error is like 80%?
Most people
Huh?
The problem isn't bug-prone languages, it's bug-prone programmers.
You lose.
You're right, but it just shifts the trust problem to data storage.
I think this is spot on.
Unlike companies such as Microsoft, Apple or even Facebook, Google is mainly identified with "Googlers," that is their engineers, rather than with the leader of the corporation. Google's engineers add creepy features because they actually think it's great if their friends can all track their locations in real time.