Faith: A system of perception that relies upon the merits of the object of faith for substantiation and justification rather than the perspicacity of the subject. (contrast empiricism and rationalism to flesh out the idea)
These days, we regard it as an aberration when a few million people are starving to death somewhere; for most of recorded history, that has been a fear with which everyone had to live, all the time
You are quite correct in this. However what many people fail to see is that the cycles of starvation/famine that the "old world" had are quite similar to our boom and bust cycles of business. There would be good years and bad years and most of it was predicated on weather and later on the planning skills of the leaders. This is drawn into even sharper focus when you understand that the economies of the "old world" were agricultural. When food was not produced at a certain level everyone suffered because the "money supply" was directly tied to agricultural goods.
I find it odd that people do not realize that the same ups and downs that put people out of business, starve famalies, put strain on the workers, etc. have been going on since before recorded history. It is even funnier when people try to lay the blame for the natural cucle of things at the feet of one person (the president/fed. chairman/Ken Lay/grandmother) when all of humanity has not been able to eradicate this cycle of change and we have been trying since before anyone can remember or document.
Case in point: Jump on a Quake server with me (2,3, and many of the mods for these) and I will hand you your ass in a matter of seconds...HOWEVER...
I tried playing AA this week for the first time. Even after doing all the in game training it took me almost 10 games to get my first kill. Even then I think it was someone just as inexperienced as I was. Talk about a humbling experience.
Now I vacilate between trying to tuff it out and learn the skills for AA (the chasecams help alot) and dragging my bullet ridden ass back to the Quake servers and trying to recover some of my shattered ego by popping off a few opponents with well placed rail shots while flying through the air at the end of a grapling hook.
1) The blue screen of DEATH 2) Downloading patches 3) Security holes the size of the Jupiter 4) Inexplicable freezes and crashes 5) Zombified/enslaved/trojaned all to hell 6) Malware/spyware of titanic proportions sucking up all my resources 7) Minesweeper
I have Windows you insensitive CLOD! (and I can't use it)
"but what about providing the best goods/services/whatever"
There are many companies that do this. However, you will find that money is always a consideration because to be/sell/offer the BEST it is going to be expensive.
For example, if you want the best goods to sell you have to use the best raw materials and the best craftsmen with the best training and the best equipment. Don't wanna pay for these things? You ain't gonna get them. Don't make any money? You won't keep your craftsmen or your equipment for long.
"or committing a certain percentage of resources to charitable causes?"
FACT: the companies that generate the most money donate the most to charities, scholarships, communities, etc. You name a way to help people philanthropically and then look at the most profitable companies. These are the ones that make the big donations and that help the most people.
"Companies laying off workers while simultaneously awarding mutli-million salaries and bonuses to their CEOs are, as far as I'm concerned, failures.
While abuses are certaily a reality the two things you discribe (jobs and salaries) don't necessarily have a direct correlation. Furthermore, most CEOs have a board of shareholders to answer to. Shareholders are the actual owners of the company. If the CEO takes actions that the owners like and they decide to reward the CEO they can...news flash: It's their freaking company!
Lastly, to consider a company a failure because they lay people off, regardless of how much they pay their bosses, is simplistic. Consider a company that lays off 5% of its workforce. You have marginalized the other 95%, without regard for why the layoffs happened. If a position is obsolete and can be eliminated, or a division is in the same position or worse, who are you to denigrate the CEO and the company who rewards the CEO for recognizing it and taking action? They have a right to do what they think is in the best interests of their company. If that includes giving their CEO a raise or a bonus to make sure that he stays, so be it.
I feel like you think that people have a right to a job and that someone who makes alot of money should be punished if they fire other people.
It is a well observed fact that higher education and intelligence are factors that lead to lower birth rates.
It seems like the scientists themselves have beaten our would-be troll to the punch.
I propose a system where for each point over 140 of IQ you have you are forced into monthly reproductive congress with a less than intelligent, vapid and self centered, yet nubile and stunningly gorgeous member of the opposite sex who happens to be at least 10 years younger than you are (down to the limit for legality except in Louisiana where the lower limit will be set at the vastly higher standard of 17 years of age).
The purpose of this is obvious. No this is not a new system of eugenics designed to raise the IQ of the world. It is quite simply the only way that many of us will ever get laid.
I had a rat named Fuzzmeister. Fuzzmeister was pretty cool: liked to get lost in the apartment, hide in the bed and chew away at a pile of egg crate foam we got until he had made a little den. All was well except that for about a month we did not know what sex he was.
Then almost overnight his testicles grew to one third of his body weight. The little guy would run around the house with his huge-ass nutsack bouncing off of the floor. Damn.
We swore that we would get a girl for the next one.
Actually, you like others, probably believe the Bible to contain things that it does not. In fact, the most common malady I see in people who are self proclaimed practicioners of Christianity is that they grossly misrepresent the Bible and its contents.
A few examples are things like, "you will go to hell for you sins." The Bible is explicit that humankind's sins are not the issue when hell is being discussed, and that no one goes to hell for sinning. Furthermore, the word "hell" has no meaning with respect to the Bible. It actually means nothing. There are quite a few difinitive words that have actual technical meanings that were replaced by the word hell in a translation.
Or "we should have a Christian nation" or "We should make laws to enforce morality." The Bible expressly forbids Christians from getting involved in politics to try to recreate the state in the image of a Christian organization. The state is there to provide freedom, not as a venue for the destruction of the self determination of the populace by any one group, regardless of how they feel about thir own morality. Odd that the founding fathers are respected for their understanding of the Bible by many Christians, yet they do not see WHY the seperation of church and state was so important, or even that it was EXTREMELY important to those founding fathers who were Christians.
Or even "Christianity is an EMOTIONAL experience." The Bible again states explicitly that thought is the motivator, and that emotions only place in the spiritual life is as a responder or appreciator of thoughts. Many churches teach their congregation to seek feelings and to amplify them through specific practices. This is a total denial of the tennents discribed inteh Bible.
My favorite, though, is the "God is a white bearded, robed man living in the sky." This one is unbelievably hilarious to me. The God that is discribed in the Bible is so alien it is scary. One you learn enough about who and what the He is you start to realize that the characteristics of God are vastly different from those of mankind, and that anthropomorphism is only there to help those who have not learned.
There are scores of these discrepancies that I could go on about, but I think that you see the point.
Even worse, people will go to the Bible, or other authoratative doctrinal texts, and seek out justification for their beliefs that they formed without help from the sources they are referencing. This is the antithesis of what an authoratative epistemelogical text is for.
Interestingly enough, I have learned things in studying the Bible from the original languages that I do not feel 100% comfortable with. For one example, the Bible's stance on abortion. What it really says is quite different from what you may think it is, especially if you listen to the "religious right." However, the entire point of a document that procalims itself to contain the knowledge of God that God wanted man to know is that the reader must be willing to put aside his own feelings and thoughts in favor of those of God. The great thing about this is that if you are not 100% comfortable and you are seeking the truth, you will be in a continual state of thought, reflection, and questioning. With this structure, you also have to leave behind your ego, otherwise you will reject without consideration anything that opposes your personal viewpoint. You also have to make sure that you are not riding a wave of emotion, and that your motivation is based on thought and not feeling. Combine that with daily study in the proper format and you have a recipie for knowledge.
However, your first statement makes no sense to someone like myself who studies the Bible systematically from the original languages and through the lens of the historical times that it was written in. People cannot already believe what they do not know. Also, people cannot learn what they think they already know. Once they "know" it they reject modification of
"What the thinker thinks, the prover proves" --Robert Anton Wilson
This quote sums up your post quite nicely. First, what it means is that there is this really small part of the human mind which we can label the thinker. Once the thinker thinks something is true, the prover (the rest of the brain) goes about seeking evidence to support the belief of the thinker.
People will hop over good evidence to read something that will support what they already believe, and ignore even the best sources of information if they contradict those closely held beliefs.
I do have a different opinion about people than you do when it comes to this. I think that EVERYONE has this problem, regardless of their intillectual disposition. In fact, educated people suffer from this in a far worse manner. Their "facts" have support, and they feel justified in their beliefs because of their intillectual superiority and their education.
This makes it doubly hard to present them with contradictory information. Not only is their experience and knowledge in the way, but now you also have to contend with their ego. Knowledge and experience can be mitigated with new facts and information, but the ego is unbelievebly stubborn, resisting and rejecting the truth, sometimes even until death.
One has only to read about the history of scientific development to see that those most educated are also those most likely to hold on to false information. Stupid people will believe whatever new thing comes along that is more outlandish or spectacular than the last thing they believed.
Ok, let me get this straight...there's this guy flying through a city. He's obviously travelling faster than the speed of sound as there are shockwaves behind him. He's NOT in a plane, just flying because he can......and you're worried about the believability of the physics that occur when he catches his girlfriend just jumped out of a skyscraper?
I think your SoDD (Suspension of Disbelief Device) is suffering from a major malfunction. Works part of the time; totally shuts down at odd moments. You might want to have that checked.
If it keeps up you might start believeing in redistribution of wealth, kynesian economics, and that the government is not out to get you.
"We've had a couple of previous stories about a guy building pulsejet engines - the type of engine described above is a turbojet
We just invented a new one...serverjet! That is where fire shoots out of the drive bays of a server so fast that the whole thing flies across the room!!
Sometimes I just think yall pick random servers to destroy. Kinda like that guy from the Jerk who flips through the newspaper and then just pops his finger down on a person and then he kills them. Likewise, you probably put in a topic to Google and hit "I'm feeling lucky!" Whoever the unlucky site is gets the slashdotting!
I liked your post and you seem pretty smart so I want to bounce a few ideas off of you.
First, my opinion is that the real reason we are in Iraq is miltifaceted, again, not having to do with oil, but also, not specifically about the suspected WMD's. That may have been the sizzle, but it was not the steak.
First I think that the USA is there to establish a long term strategic base of operations and to assert the US presence in that part of the world. The President's statements that this will be a long ordeal and that we must stay the course makes me believe we may be there a long time in years, not in months.
Second, I think that there has been a view that the Middle East was just too damn unstable for us to go in there and excercise our dominance and will without suffering unacceptable consequences. I feel that this invasion and regeim decapitation is a warning shot to the other countries in the Middle East that we are not above getting our hands dity and we are not afraid to get involved in the Middle East.
Lastly, I think that the US presence is meant to stabilize the region by removing the head power figure of the region and replacing it with the USA temporarily, and then with a much more stabe country in the long term. In the meantime, I think that the US presence is meant to have a colling effect on the other countries in the area: They will be watching and waiting to see what happens. This also has the effect of lending some strength to the Israelis.
I have the feeling that all of these points were discussed by the administration in conjunction with this invasion, whether euphamistically or directly. I also have the feeling that there were other compelling reasons for this invasion that we do not know about, however this is probably just my overactive paranoia being overly overactive.
By the way, I ascribe no malice to these suspected motivations. In fact the long term strategic goal, if accurate, is commendable. Unfortunately, I bet that most Americans would not see it this way, and probably do not understand the implications of this anyways.
Tolerance of other cultures is not the key. Do you think that people in intolernat cultures care if we are tolerant of them? They will still go on hating what the USA stands for. Just the fact that Christians are allowed to roam free pisses these people off to no end. And you think that "tolerance" will make a difference?
The resuls of centuries of militant fascism reinforced with restrictive religious codes and economic depression have produced a society where all of the populace's frustrations and repressed impulses and desires are easily channeled into anger at the infidel Americans with the full support of their country and their god. Just as in communist nations where liberty is restricted, the populace begins to get anxious to go to war. What makes this worse is that these nations have a philosophy based in their religion that rewards eternally killing those that oppose their god. In the absence of even the most rudimentary system of theological orthodoxy, the interpretation of just who is opposing Allah is up to whoever the people will listen to. And, because of the structure of their society, only the most ruthless rise to a position of dominace.
Evidence of this was seen when some of the captured Americans in Iraq were tortured and killed. The manner in which they were killed was specifically described in the Quoran as the way to treat those in opposition to Allah. Given the chance, those who performed this act and those that taught them that this is how their god wants them to act will perpetrate the same kind of actions against all Americans.
Your simplistic viewpoint and conclusions that ignore the facts, hyperbolic attributions of character and history, and expectation of cruel and racist views by the American people lead me to believe that you either have a seperate agenda that is helped by your post here, or that you are truly ignorant and just plain hate America and those who live here. It would not surprise me if you did, and it is human nature to adopt a viewpoint and then seek evidence to support that view, filtering out contradictions until they find something they can use to validate their closely held belief.
However, your post reveals no depth of thought, thinly disguised lies and attacks, and a singularly acrimonious viewpoint, that if based on the content of the post itself, is sadly lacking in foundation.
In other words, I think that you are looking for a reason to hate America, and regardless of what is done by America you will find a reason to do so. You want this so much that you are unwilling to accept facts that would contradict what you think and will strech the facts you do have and color them with hyperbolie in order to feel justified in your mental position. Furthermore, I think that you ascribe total blame for 9/11 on the USA and that you see nothing wrong with holding this attitude. Lastly I think that you are not the least bit disgusted with what happened on 9/11, and that you probably feel that it is what those "pig-americans" deserve.
An odd thought occurred to me reading your post. (also from my newish experience with MYIE and tabbed browsing)
Does any browser offer a "tab grouping" function? I was thinking that you could have small integer buttons near or on the tab bar that would let you group your tabs and move between the groups easily, eliminating the clutter from other subjects. Research paper tabs on one tab group, RGMS pr0n pages on another tab, slashdot articles and replies on another.
Actually the viruses (and all the applications!) will have to be run on the external CPU, memory, and hard drive. All of the resources the article listed will be used exclusively for running the Longhorn OS.
Does this not imply that all other gods are false? If they are false doesn't that make them inferior and yours superior? Im my mind the only way to not have a trumphalist religion is to be pantheistic and acknowledge the ascendency of all other gods along with yours.
Maybe you are seeing something else here, or have a different connotation to the word triumphalist than is denoted in the dictionary. If that is the case a little definitional rehabilitation may be needed on my part to allow better communication.
As for the word "race" it would have been better stated as a nation or a people. However it does not change the fact that they were a strong force thorughout a great portion of their history described in The Tanakh, as well as having some xenophobic tendencies. The fact that anyone can become a Jew does not change anything with respect to how they viewed other nations.
As for not prosletyzing and reference for the distain that some Jews had for other groups of people you have only to see the story of Jonah and the big fish. Not only did he hold in contempt those that he was supposed to be prosletyzing to, but he even refused God when told to go and speak to them. Even after he went and did his job he was disgusted with himself.
Regardless, you do not adress the other points I made. If the books are full of hyperbolie and nationalistic propaganda as you profess they are, why did they only express it in one way(the winning of battles) and then even atribute those triumphs to God alone? It just dosen't make sense to me.
Furthermore, saying that we do not have evidence of something just means that we haven't found any, not that it did not happen.
"Judaism is not and never has been a triumphalist religion"
You have got to be kidding me! Triumpahlist means that you believe your religion to be superior to all others. The Jews not only believed this, but believed that they as a race were superior as well (and in many ways are). This prevented them from prosletyzing because they saw others as not worthy of even knowing about "their" God.
Read the Old Testament closely and you will realize that the Jews were punished for NOT proselytizing, and the history you speak of is rife with examples of the failings of the Jews and their leaders. If the collection of books is supposed to be about boosting nationalistic pride, why would they show thir leaders as flawed, sinful, and vulnerable people? Why would they attribute to their God the sole responsibility for their survival instead of making up stories about thier own inherent strength? Why would they consistently show how weak they were and how they were punished and destroyed for their disobedience repeatedly if their aim in compiling this supposedly hyperbolic history was to impress their offspring?
"The tendency of Americans to completely forget/not care that there even were any Iraqis hurt is maybe the most disturbing thing about this country to me."
The irony and self contradictory nature of this comment is so blatant as to make me wonder about the mental state of the person who wrote it.
The facts of the case are that American soldiers deposed a government that was excercising the worst form of opression and was simultaneously decimating a portion of the populace through state instituted murder and torture.
The best way to prevent Iraquis from being "hurt" was to remove the dictator that was controlling the country. This entails removing the power base (loyal supporters). This means that the people who are willing to die in order to make sure that they can keep on murdering and torturing must do so.
Whatever the count of Iraquis dead from this "war" it is far fewer than would be killed had the government of Iraq been left alone. This does not even mention the content of those who were killed. Most of the Iraquis killed in the invasion are those who supported the dictatorial government. This is not a great endorsement of their character.
Those who end up in the mass graves and torture chambers tend to be members of minority groups, political objectors, or someone who just gets in the way of the wrong person. Not exactly someone deserving of being tortured to death if you ask me.
You have just fulfilled your own most disturbing case. You seem to have forgotten or not cared that there were thousands of innocent Iraquis being kidnapped, maimed, starved, tortured, raped, and killed each year by their own governmnet. Not to mention the fact that they were opressed in law and by fear.
If you were so worried about the health and well being of the Iraquis you should have had on a uniform and been over there helping liberate them. Instead you sit back and criticize the people who are doing the only thing that has changed their chances to have a life free from a constant fear of death.
I find it fascinating that you would think in this way. So blind to the forest AND the trees, you can't even see that you are a hipocrite.
"Remember, your speed of thought doesn't = increase in complexity of intelligence."
I was actually thinking of the overclocking of neurons in the region of the brain mentioned in the article. In this case what I think would happen is that it would allow someone to access and hold more information in their immediate frame of reference, increasing the associative nature of their thoughs and allowing them to make more connections/correlations between their current thought focus and thir memory.
The benefits could incluse the ability to notice vague correlations between dissimilar things that others miss, but that result in a deeper understanding of the subject, or a new way to consider the subject.
The corollary of a malfunction in this area of the brain could be the introduction of unfocused collections of images/memories or faulty associations. Can anyone say insanity?
"Magic/Myth/Religion are all ways to explain the world to those who can't bother to be interested in the actual truth."
This statement raises the question: What is the "actual truth"?
IIRC, one of the greatest philisophical arguments for a specific religion (you could insert almost any coded religion into this philosophy BTW) is pascals wager. However, it is easily refuted by saying that you cannot be sure that the god you believe in is the real or only one.
You seem to have another way to defeat this well traveled religio-philisophical argument. You actually KNOW the truth!
I can see why you would be a little freaked out about telling everyone. Humanity has a really bad record when it comes to people who profess to have the truth. The last guy got murdered by some Romans and some Jews in a pretty spectacular way. And I hope you are not Buddhist, because if you meet Buddha on the road you're supposed to kill him. There are ALOT of Buddhists around and many of them know martial arts!
Actually, I think that we have come a long way since those primitive times. I am sure that the truth of the universe would be tolerated much better now.
So please...enlighten me! What is this "actual truth" you speak of. I am very interested!
It is completely impossible to say anything truly intelligent or enlightening in a space this size, excep
It is indeed more morally wrong to steal from the poor than from the rich, because the poor will suffer more from losing a given amount of money than the rich will.
Oh this is a GEM I tell you. I always thought that most people were idiots, but this just proves it!
Listen closely: Theft is immoral. It dosen't matter who you steal from. It dosen't matter how much you steal.
The punishment meted out by law if you get caught may differ based on how much you steal, but the fact that it is immoral is immutable and absolute.
Try this scenario...Imagine someone steals from a rich person. The "rich" person is not hurt by it so much, but the money was intended to go to build a charity hospital. Now the poor are hurt by it more, yet they lost nothing.
Or what if it was capitol for a business expansion the "rich" person was planning. So then, instead of being able to provide 20 new jobs to people, the whole business fails because they are now undercapitalized. Now 200 people lose their jobs. That is better somehow?
What if they just stole property. Maybe a simple trinket like a ring, or a necklace. Rich people have lots of those and they can buy more, right? But what if it was given to them by their great grand mother who inherited it from her grand mother.
Or what if it was a widow's wedding ring? It would be ok to take that because her husband left her all that money. Her emotions mean nothing, and her property rights are diminished because she happens to have a large amount of money.
You have no idea how much contempt I have for people who think like you do. It scares me how many there seem to be.
Slashdot Mirror
Faith: A system of perception that relies upon the merits of the object of faith for substantiation and justification rather than the perspicacity of the subject. (contrast empiricism and rationalism to flesh out the idea)
These days, we regard it as an aberration when a few million people are starving to death somewhere; for most of recorded history, that has been a fear with which everyone had to live, all the time
You are quite correct in this. However what many people fail to see is that the cycles of starvation/famine that the "old world" had are quite similar to our boom and bust cycles of business. There would be good years and bad years and most of it was predicated on weather and later on the planning skills of the leaders. This is drawn into even sharper focus when you understand that the economies of the "old world" were agricultural. When food was not produced at a certain level everyone suffered because the "money supply" was directly tied to agricultural goods.
I find it odd that people do not realize that the same ups and downs that put people out of business, starve famalies, put strain on the workers, etc. have been going on since before recorded history. It is even funnier when people try to lay the blame for the natural cucle of things at the feet of one person (the president/fed. chairman/Ken Lay/grandmother) when all of humanity has not been able to eradicate this cycle of change and we have been trying since before anyone can remember or document.
Case in point: Jump on a Quake server with me (2,3, and many of the mods for these) and I will hand you your ass in a matter of seconds ...HOWEVER...
I tried playing AA this week for the first time. Even after doing all the in game training it took me almost 10 games to get my first kill. Even then I think it was someone just as inexperienced as I was. Talk about a humbling experience.
Now I vacilate between trying to tuff it out and learn the skills for AA (the chasecams help alot) and dragging my bullet ridden ass back to the Quake servers and trying to recover some of my shattered ego by popping off a few opponents with well placed rail shots while flying through the air at the end of a grapling hook.
What keeps me from using Windows?
1) The blue screen of DEATH
2) Downloading patches
3) Security holes the size of the Jupiter
4) Inexplicable freezes and crashes
5) Zombified/enslaved/trojaned all to hell
6) Malware/spyware of titanic proportions sucking up all my resources
7) Minesweeper
I have Windows you insensitive CLOD! (and I can't use it)
"but what about providing the best goods/services/whatever"
There are many companies that do this. However, you will find that money is always a consideration because to be/sell/offer the BEST it is going to be expensive.
For example, if you want the best goods to sell you have to use the best raw materials and the best craftsmen with the best training and the best equipment. Don't wanna pay for these things? You ain't gonna get them. Don't make any money? You won't keep your craftsmen or your equipment for long.
"or committing a certain percentage of resources to charitable causes?"
FACT: the companies that generate the most money donate the most to charities, scholarships, communities, etc. You name a way to help people philanthropically and then look at the most profitable companies. These are the ones that make the big donations and that help the most people.
"Companies laying off workers while simultaneously awarding mutli-million salaries and bonuses to their CEOs are, as far as I'm concerned, failures.
While abuses are certaily a reality the two things you discribe (jobs and salaries) don't necessarily have a direct correlation. Furthermore, most CEOs have a board of shareholders to answer to. Shareholders are the actual owners of the company. If the CEO takes actions that the owners like and they decide to reward the CEO they can...news flash: It's their freaking company!
Lastly, to consider a company a failure because they lay people off, regardless of how much they pay their bosses, is simplistic. Consider a company that lays off 5% of its workforce. You have marginalized the other 95%, without regard for why the layoffs happened. If a position is obsolete and can be eliminated, or a division is in the same position or worse, who are you to denigrate the CEO and the company who rewards the CEO for recognizing it and taking action? They have a right to do what they think is in the best interests of their company. If that includes giving their CEO a raise or a bonus to make sure that he stays, so be it.
I feel like you think that people have a right to a job and that someone who makes alot of money should be punished if they fire other people.
It is a well observed fact that higher education and intelligence are factors that lead to lower birth rates.
It seems like the scientists themselves have beaten our would-be troll to the punch.
I propose a system where for each point over 140 of IQ you have you are forced into monthly reproductive congress with a less than intelligent, vapid and self centered, yet nubile and stunningly gorgeous member of the opposite sex who happens to be at least 10 years younger than you are (down to the limit for legality except in Louisiana where the lower limit will be set at the vastly higher standard of 17 years of age).
The purpose of this is obvious. No this is not a new system of eugenics designed to raise the IQ of the world. It is quite simply the only way that many of us will ever get laid.
I had a rat named Fuzzmeister. Fuzzmeister was pretty cool: liked to get lost in the apartment, hide in the bed and chew away at a pile of egg crate foam we got until he had made a little den. All was well except that for about a month we did not know what sex he was.
Then almost overnight his testicles grew to one third of his body weight. The little guy would run around the house with his huge-ass nutsack bouncing off of the floor. Damn.
We swore that we would get a girl for the next one.
"Like the bible?
Actually, you like others, probably believe the Bible to contain things that it does not. In fact, the most common malady I see in people who are self proclaimed practicioners of Christianity is that they grossly misrepresent the Bible and its contents.
A few examples are things like, "you will go to hell for you sins." The Bible is explicit that humankind's sins are not the issue when hell is being discussed, and that no one goes to hell for sinning. Furthermore, the word "hell" has no meaning with respect to the Bible. It actually means nothing. There are quite a few difinitive words that have actual technical meanings that were replaced by the word hell in a translation.
Or "we should have a Christian nation" or "We should make laws to enforce morality." The Bible expressly forbids Christians from getting involved in politics to try to recreate the state in the image of a Christian organization. The state is there to provide freedom, not as a venue for the destruction of the self determination of the populace by any one group, regardless of how they feel about thir own morality. Odd that the founding fathers are respected for their understanding of the Bible by many Christians, yet they do not see WHY the seperation of church and state was so important, or even that it was EXTREMELY important to those founding fathers who were Christians.
Or even "Christianity is an EMOTIONAL experience." The Bible again states explicitly that thought is the motivator, and that emotions only place in the spiritual life is as a responder or appreciator of thoughts. Many churches teach their congregation to seek feelings and to amplify them through specific practices. This is a total denial of the tennents discribed inteh Bible.
My favorite, though, is the "God is a white bearded, robed man living in the sky." This one is unbelievably hilarious to me. The God that is discribed in the Bible is so alien it is scary. One you learn enough about who and what the He is you start to realize that the characteristics of God are vastly different from those of mankind, and that anthropomorphism is only there to help those who have not learned.
There are scores of these discrepancies that I could go on about, but I think that you see the point.
Even worse, people will go to the Bible, or other authoratative doctrinal texts, and seek out justification for their beliefs that they formed without help from the sources they are referencing. This is the antithesis of what an authoratative epistemelogical text is for.
Interestingly enough, I have learned things in studying the Bible from the original languages that I do not feel 100% comfortable with. For one example, the Bible's stance on abortion. What it really says is quite different from what you may think it is, especially if you listen to the "religious right." However, the entire point of a document that procalims itself to contain the knowledge of God that God wanted man to know is that the reader must be willing to put aside his own feelings and thoughts in favor of those of God. The great thing about this is that if you are not 100% comfortable and you are seeking the truth, you will be in a continual state of thought, reflection, and questioning. With this structure, you also have to leave behind your ego, otherwise you will reject without consideration anything that opposes your personal viewpoint. You also have to make sure that you are not riding a wave of emotion, and that your motivation is based on thought and not feeling. Combine that with daily study in the proper format and you have a recipie for knowledge.
However, your first statement makes no sense to someone like myself who studies the Bible systematically from the original languages and through the lens of the historical times that it was written in. People cannot already believe what they do not know. Also, people cannot learn what they think they already know. Once they "know" it they reject modification of
"What the thinker thinks, the prover proves"
--Robert Anton Wilson
This quote sums up your post quite nicely. First, what it means is that there is this really small part of the human mind which we can label the thinker. Once the thinker thinks something is true, the prover (the rest of the brain) goes about seeking evidence to support the belief of the thinker.
People will hop over good evidence to read something that will support what they already believe, and ignore even the best sources of information if they contradict those closely held beliefs.
I do have a different opinion about people than you do when it comes to this. I think that EVERYONE has this problem, regardless of their intillectual disposition. In fact, educated people suffer from this in a far worse manner. Their "facts" have support, and they feel justified in their beliefs because of their intillectual superiority and their education.
This makes it doubly hard to present them with contradictory information. Not only is their experience and knowledge in the way, but now you also have to contend with their ego. Knowledge and experience can be mitigated with new facts and information, but the ego is unbelievebly stubborn, resisting and rejecting the truth, sometimes even until death.
One has only to read about the history of scientific development to see that those most educated are also those most likely to hold on to false information. Stupid people will believe whatever new thing comes along that is more outlandish or spectacular than the last thing they believed.
"You can get by password security by simply typing "OVERRIDE SECURITY"
HEY!! Who told you my password?!?!
Mr. Heywood U. Rootmybox
Head of Security
Microsoft Corp.
Ok, let me get this straight...there's this guy flying through a city. He's obviously travelling faster than the speed of sound as there are shockwaves behind him. He's NOT in a plane, just flying because he can... ...and you're worried about the believability of the physics that occur when he catches his girlfriend just jumped out of a skyscraper?
I think your SoDD (Suspension of Disbelief Device) is suffering from a major malfunction. Works part of the time; totally shuts down at odd moments. You might want to have that checked.
If it keeps up you might start believeing in redistribution of wealth, kynesian economics, and that the government is not out to get you.
"We've had a couple of previous stories about a guy building pulsejet engines - the type of engine described above is a turbojet
We just invented a new one...serverjet! That is where fire shoots out of the drive bays of a server so fast that the whole thing flies across the room!!
Sometimes I just think yall pick random servers to destroy. Kinda like that guy from the Jerk who flips through the newspaper and then just pops his finger down on a person and then he kills them. Likewise, you probably put in a topic to Google and hit "I'm feeling lucky!" Whoever the unlucky site is gets the slashdotting!
I can feel you laughing from here.
I liked your post and you seem pretty smart so I want to bounce a few ideas off of you.
First, my opinion is that the real reason we are in Iraq is miltifaceted, again, not having to do with oil, but also, not specifically about the suspected WMD's. That may have been the sizzle, but it was not the steak.
First I think that the USA is there to establish a long term strategic base of operations and to assert the US presence in that part of the world. The President's statements that this will be a long ordeal and that we must stay the course makes me believe we may be there a long time in years, not in months.
Second, I think that there has been a view that the Middle East was just too damn unstable for us to go in there and excercise our dominance and will without suffering unacceptable consequences. I feel that this invasion and regeim decapitation is a warning shot to the other countries in the Middle East that we are not above getting our hands dity and we are not afraid to get involved in the Middle East.
Lastly, I think that the US presence is meant to stabilize the region by removing the head power figure of the region and replacing it with the USA temporarily, and then with a much more stabe country in the long term. In the meantime, I think that the US presence is meant to have a colling effect on the other countries in the area: They will be watching and waiting to see what happens. This also has the effect of lending some strength to the Israelis.
I have the feeling that all of these points were discussed by the administration in conjunction with this invasion, whether euphamistically or directly. I also have the feeling that there were other compelling reasons for this invasion that we do not know about, however this is probably just my overactive paranoia being overly overactive.
By the way, I ascribe no malice to these suspected motivations. In fact the long term strategic goal, if accurate, is commendable. Unfortunately, I bet that most Americans would not see it this way, and probably do not understand the implications of this anyways.
Tolerance of other cultures is not the key. Do you think that people in intolernat cultures care if we are tolerant of them? They will still go on hating what the USA stands for. Just the fact that Christians are allowed to roam free pisses these people off to no end. And you think that "tolerance" will make a difference?
The resuls of centuries of militant fascism reinforced with restrictive religious codes and economic depression have produced a society where all of the populace's frustrations and repressed impulses and desires are easily channeled into anger at the infidel Americans with the full support of their country and their god. Just as in communist nations where liberty is restricted, the populace begins to get anxious to go to war. What makes this worse is that these nations have a philosophy based in their religion that rewards eternally killing those that oppose their god. In the absence of even the most rudimentary system of theological orthodoxy, the interpretation of just who is opposing Allah is up to whoever the people will listen to. And, because of the structure of their society, only the most ruthless rise to a position of dominace.
Evidence of this was seen when some of the captured Americans in Iraq were tortured and killed. The manner in which they were killed was specifically described in the Quoran as the way to treat those in opposition to Allah. Given the chance, those who performed this act and those that taught them that this is how their god wants them to act will perpetrate the same kind of actions against all Americans.
Your simplistic viewpoint and conclusions that ignore the facts, hyperbolic attributions of character and history, and expectation of cruel and racist views by the American people lead me to believe that you either have a seperate agenda that is helped by your post here, or that you are truly ignorant and just plain hate America and those who live here. It would not surprise me if you did, and it is human nature to adopt a viewpoint and then seek evidence to support that view, filtering out contradictions until they find something they can use to validate their closely held belief.
However, your post reveals no depth of thought, thinly disguised lies and attacks, and a singularly acrimonious viewpoint, that if based on the content of the post itself, is sadly lacking in foundation.
In other words, I think that you are looking for a reason to hate America, and regardless of what is done by America you will find a reason to do so. You want this so much that you are unwilling to accept facts that would contradict what you think and will strech the facts you do have and color them with hyperbolie in order to feel justified in your mental position. Furthermore, I think that you ascribe total blame for 9/11 on the USA and that you see nothing wrong with holding this attitude. Lastly I think that you are not the least bit disgusted with what happened on 9/11, and that you probably feel that it is what those "pig-americans" deserve.
An odd thought occurred to me reading your post. (also from my newish experience with MYIE and tabbed browsing)
Does any browser offer a "tab grouping" function? I was thinking that you could have small integer buttons near or on the tab bar that would let you group your tabs and move between the groups easily, eliminating the clutter from other subjects. Research paper tabs on one tab group, RGMS pr0n pages on another tab, slashdot articles and replies on another.
Just an idea.
Actually the viruses (and all the applications!) will have to be run on the external CPU, memory, and hard drive. All of the resources the article listed will be used exclusively for running the Longhorn OS.
And you thought Win XP was bloated! HAH!
"there is a single God"
Does this not imply that all other gods are false? If they are false doesn't that make them inferior and yours superior? Im my mind the only way to not have a trumphalist religion is to be pantheistic and acknowledge the ascendency of all other gods along with yours.
Maybe you are seeing something else here, or have a different connotation to the word triumphalist than is denoted in the dictionary. If that is the case a little definitional rehabilitation may be needed on my part to allow better communication.
As for the word "race" it would have been better stated as a nation or a people. However it does not change the fact that they were a strong force thorughout a great portion of their history described in The Tanakh, as well as having some xenophobic tendencies. The fact that anyone can become a Jew does not change anything with respect to how they viewed other nations.
As for not prosletyzing and reference for the distain that some Jews had for other groups of people you have only to see the story of Jonah and the big fish. Not only did he hold in contempt those that he was supposed to be prosletyzing to, but he even refused God when told to go and speak to them. Even after he went and did his job he was disgusted with himself.
Regardless, you do not adress the other points I made. If the books are full of hyperbolie and nationalistic propaganda as you profess they are, why did they only express it in one way(the winning of battles) and then even atribute those triumphs to God alone? It just dosen't make sense to me.
Furthermore, saying that we do not have evidence of something just means that we haven't found any, not that it did not happen.
"Judaism is not and never has been a triumphalist religion"
You have got to be kidding me! Triumpahlist means that you believe your religion to be superior to all others. The Jews not only believed this, but believed that they as a race were superior as well (and in many ways are). This prevented them from prosletyzing because they saw others as not worthy of even knowing about "their" God.
Read the Old Testament closely and you will realize that the Jews were punished for NOT proselytizing, and the history you speak of is rife with examples of the failings of the Jews and their leaders. If the collection of books is supposed to be about boosting nationalistic pride, why would they show thir leaders as flawed, sinful, and vulnerable people? Why would they attribute to their God the sole responsibility for their survival instead of making up stories about thier own inherent strength? Why would they consistently show how weak they were and how they were punished and destroyed for their disobedience repeatedly if their aim in compiling this supposedly hyperbolic history was to impress their offspring?
I'm sorry, but you make no sense.
"The tendency of Americans to completely forget/not care that there even were any Iraqis hurt is maybe the most disturbing thing about this country to me."
The irony and self contradictory nature of this comment is so blatant as to make me wonder about the mental state of the person who wrote it.
The facts of the case are that American soldiers deposed a government that was excercising the worst form of opression and was simultaneously decimating a portion of the populace through state instituted murder and torture.
The best way to prevent Iraquis from being "hurt" was to remove the dictator that was controlling the country. This entails removing the power base (loyal supporters). This means that the people who are willing to die in order to make sure that they can keep on murdering and torturing must do so.
Whatever the count of Iraquis dead from this "war" it is far fewer than would be killed had the government of Iraq been left alone. This does not even mention the content of those who were killed. Most of the Iraquis killed in the invasion are those who supported the dictatorial government. This is not a great endorsement of their character.
Those who end up in the mass graves and torture chambers tend to be members of minority groups, political objectors, or someone who just gets in the way of the wrong person. Not exactly someone deserving of being tortured to death if you ask me.
You have just fulfilled your own most disturbing case. You seem to have forgotten or not cared that there were thousands of innocent Iraquis being kidnapped, maimed, starved, tortured, raped, and killed each year by their own governmnet. Not to mention the fact that they were opressed in law and by fear.
If you were so worried about the health and well being of the Iraquis you should have had on a uniform and been over there helping liberate them. Instead you sit back and criticize the people who are doing the only thing that has changed their chances to have a life free from a constant fear of death.
I find it fascinating that you would think in this way. So blind to the forest AND the trees, you can't even see that you are a hipocrite.
"Remember, your speed of thought doesn't = increase in complexity of intelligence."
I was actually thinking of the overclocking of neurons in the region of the brain mentioned in the article. In this case what I think would happen is that it would allow someone to access and hold more information in their immediate frame of reference, increasing the associative nature of their thoughs and allowing them to make more connections/correlations between their current thought focus and thir memory.
The benefits could incluse the ability to notice vague correlations between dissimilar things that others miss, but that result in a deeper understanding of the subject, or a new way to consider the subject.
The corollary of a malfunction in this area of the brain could be the introduction of unfocused collections of images/memories or faulty associations. Can anyone say insanity?
Would it not be just as probable that a thing called an "anti-observer" would be created as well?
This anti-observer would cause things to be shifted from a deterministic state into a probability wave again.
I think they had one in the Heart of Gold and the Tardis. Damn Britts get all the cool stuff!
"Magic/Myth/Religion are all ways to explain the world to those who can't bother to be interested in the actual truth."
This statement raises the question: What is the "actual truth"?
IIRC, one of the greatest philisophical arguments for a specific religion (you could insert almost any coded religion into this philosophy BTW) is pascals wager. However, it is easily refuted by saying that you cannot be sure that the god you believe in is the real or only one.
You seem to have another way to defeat this well traveled religio-philisophical argument. You actually KNOW the truth!
I can see why you would be a little freaked out about telling everyone. Humanity has a really bad record when it comes to people who profess to have the truth. The last guy got murdered by some Romans and some Jews in a pretty spectacular way. And I hope you are not Buddhist, because if you meet Buddha on the road you're supposed to kill him. There are ALOT of Buddhists around and many of them know martial arts!
Actually, I think that we have come a long way since those primitive times. I am sure that the truth of the universe would be tolerated much better now.
So please...enlighten me! What is this "actual truth" you speak of. I am very interested!
It is completely impossible to say anything truly intelligent or enlightening in a space this size, excep
It is indeed more morally wrong to steal from the poor than from the rich, because the poor will suffer more from losing a given amount of money than the rich will.
Oh this is a GEM I tell you. I always thought that most people were idiots, but this just proves it!
Listen closely: Theft is immoral. It dosen't matter who you steal from. It dosen't matter how much you steal.
The punishment meted out by law if you get caught may differ based on how much you steal, but the fact that it is immoral is immutable and absolute.
Try this scenario...Imagine someone steals from a rich person. The "rich" person is not hurt by it so much, but the money was intended to go to build a charity hospital. Now the poor are hurt by it more, yet they lost nothing.
Or what if it was capitol for a business expansion the "rich" person was planning. So then, instead of being able to provide 20 new jobs to people, the whole business fails because they are now undercapitalized. Now 200 people lose their jobs. That is better somehow?
What if they just stole property. Maybe a simple trinket like a ring, or a necklace. Rich people have lots of those and they can buy more, right? But what if it was given to them by their great grand mother who inherited it from her grand mother.
Or what if it was a widow's wedding ring? It would be ok to take that because her husband left her all that money. Her emotions mean nothing, and her property rights are diminished because she happens to have a large amount of money.
You have no idea how much contempt I have for people who think like you do. It scares me how many there seem to be.
What is this Salary, 8 hour work day, and overtime you keep talking about.
Comissioned..the new slave labor.
Yeah, well this is slashdot: where those pesky facts never get in the way of our hard won hyperbolie!
:)
Thanks for the correction.