Some say the world will end in fire, Some say in ice. From what I've tasted of desire I hold with those who favor fire. But if it had to perish twice, I think I know enough of hate To say that for destruction ice Is also great And would suffice.
-- Robert Frost
I've been to India. Wonderful people, outstanding food, incredible poverty, poor infrastructure. They have a long way to go before I would classify them as "doing great".
"The majority is always wrong," by which I suppose he meant that principles are not a matter of majority consent.
Neither are they a matter of minority imposition.
They are a matter of personal reflection and commitment to what is right.
This is unsound for two reasons. First, it begs the definition of what is right. You've ruled out the majority; the minority is no better -- what do you have left? Second, it's no different than the ancient formula "everyone does that which is right in their own eyes". That way lies anarchy.
Travelling out of a former republic of the Soviet Union, I set off the metal detector. I was immediately taken to a side room where a man in full military uniform patted me down. Nothing was found, but as I was leaving, they were leading a woman into the same room. On the other hand, in India, they have separate metal detectors for men and women, and curtained off areas, also for the women. Handbags are thoroughly searched; one fellow in front of me had a pack of matches that were found and confiscated. In Germany, my laptop was vacuumed. I inquired, and the lady told me that they were checking for traces of explosives. All she got from me was a lot of dog hair from my golden retriever. I don't recall ever having to power up my PowerBook. It did give the agents in San Jose pause, however, when the "wipe-scan" caused an unknown error. A supervisor was called over said it happens sometimes, and let me go on.
Going through metal detectors in the states, I remove my coat, watch, glasses, wallet, shoes, empty my pockets and take off my belt. At one airport, this still wasn't enough and I set of the detector (don't remember what it was). At LaGuardia, I went through the same routine and made it to the edge of the detector without setting it off, at which point I did a little victory jig -- and prompty set off the detector. The TSB agent was kind enough to show me what had happened by demonstrating how sudden motion can set those things off.
Naturalism assumes, a priori, that there is no God. What evidence, then, would you accept? A miracle? Odds are, instead of adopting a different worldview, the facts would be fit, forcibly if necessary, into the naturalistic worldview. Take, for example, the resurrection of Christ. To the naturalist, he didn't die (discredited), swooned (discredited), was made up (discredited), & etc... Rejection of God is rarely done for rational reasons. Rather, it is the emotional impact of being subject to Someone that is the real reason behind the stated reasons.
Sorry, you're asking this question about a human being? How much do you know about human nature?
I'm a Calvinist. Does that answer your question?;-)
Whether or not it's safe (as regarding the law), I agree that, in the absence of other information, it's correct to leave it alone, since it ins't my property.
If my electric stops working is it ok for me to plug an extension cord into my neighbors house without his permission just because he doesn't have a lock on the outdoor receptacle?
In the case of the electrical outlet I have to go onto my neighbor's property to use it. With wireless, the neighbor is broadcasting onto my property. In fact, an uprotected linksys network showed up in my Airport menu while I'm composing this reply! The first issue is to note that I know that it isn't my network. Therefore, caution should be used. But I use wireless hotspots which, in some places require payment; while others are free. So a determination needs to be made if the network is public or private. That's harder, since I don't know which neighbor has the network (although I did walk around my neighborhood one night with my 17" PowerBook testing signal strength...). Discretion argues that I shouldn't use it, absent knowing the intent of the owner. But the owner not protecting the network makes it murky. Is he ignorant, or generous?
They still have not published the fact that he deserted from the national guard during Vietnam
Did some quick research and came across a different take on this charge
Fowle (and many others) claims that he went AWOL from the Texas Air National Guard. The crux of this argument is that Bush missed some drills in 1972 while he was working on a political campaign in Alabama. He later performed make-up service in 1973, before resigning from the Guard to attend Harvard Business School. Missing a few drills does not make a Guard member AWOL -- in fact, it happens all the time. I'm a member of a reserve unit, and we always have a handful of people on extended leaves of absence for a variety of reasons. Just like Bush, they have to make up the time they missed when they return to the unit, or they lose their pay and benefits. It's not a federal crime to miss a drill, for crying out loud. Besides, if he missed too many more drills while he was still under military obligation, Bush could have been forced to go on active duty, which is supposedly what he was trying to avoid in the first place!
The desire for changing the pledge is predicated on the basis for that change. The purported reason is that having the phrase "under God" violates the 2nd Amendment. I'm trying to see if this is really the case or if there is a deeper reason, perhaps a general hostility to religion. So I want to know if displaying the DoL, which is a theistic document, in school would be allowed under your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. I don't see why it's so hard getting an answer to this question.
As for "don't force your religion on other peoples' kids", I happen to agree with that position. But I contend that it must extend to atheism as well as theism, and it will be interesting to see how (or even if) a worldview neutral position can be maintained by the Government; especially since one of our founding documents says that the basis of our rights is rooted in a theistic position. Schools, for example, would have to get rid of all moral positions -- both the relativism of atheism and the absolutism of theism -- and I'm not sure I see how this could be done.
I'm trying to not be ignorant. But I also think that you've presented me with a false dichotomy. Not praising God's name every minute doesn't imply active promotion of atheism. I don't think I ever said that it did.
In any case, we've come to the heart of the problem. You rightly wrote mention either, and there's a problem. So my question is, how can society function in the absence of a worldview? If neither atheism nor theism can be promoted, what's left? AFAIK, there isn't a "meta-worldview" than can step in.
As for your last comment, I'm sure that there are morally-relativist Christians. However, Christianity and Judaism both affirm that God is the supreme law-giver and that His judgements are final. We may not like them, we may argue against them, but there is no higher court of appeal. So what I don't understand is how morally-relativist Christians defend their position, unless it's a temporary, pragmatic one. But even at that, how then can they pray "Thy will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven"?
I wish one of them might participate at this point...
Such questions (where did we come from, what is the purpose of life, what is the basis of morality) are the topics of class discussion and philosophy, not teachings to students about "the way things are."
Eventually, these discussions must become concrete since philosophy influences everything we do. If you care about consistency, you cannot separate philosophy from actions.
Talking about right vs wrong (for those that don't follow, "moral relativism") does not require advocating a particular relgious stance or faith. Morals are not based on what you believe in or your faith system -- they are your own sense of what is right and what is wrong.
First, morals are based upon what you believe. You cannot separate "this is right/that is wrong" from your philosophical system. Second, that morals "are your own sense of what is right and wrong" begs the question of which philosophy is controlling your belief system. Such a conclusion is demanded by an atheistic worldview; it is not necessarily the conclusion within a theistic worldview.
I do affirm that murder is wrong because God says so; I am not a moral relativist. [Note that I did not use the word 'kill'. Capital punishment is quite moral.] If I were to teach that "killing is wrong because it hurts people", I would have to ask "why is hurting people wrong?" I can name several cultures where hurting other people is not only right, it can be praiseworthy. Saying that killing is wrong because it's against the law begs the question of "why does the law say it's wrong?"
As for teaching my children the basis of right and wrong, I do. And I teach them that the moral relativism which is rampant in school is wrong, and I hope that they'll tangle with their teachers over this.
Your last statement is telling. What it means is that atheists don't understand the morality which is required by their philosophy. They lead what is termed "the unexamined life."
1) it's dead history - we can't change the declaration of independence now no matter how hard we try. Changing it isn't the issue. The issue is the teaching and display of the contents. 2) kids aren't forced to recite the declaration of independence every single morning What if this document was hanging on the wall in every classroom? 3) the phrase itself isn't focusing on religion, but on the concept that our rights are not given by the government in england, but inherent in every living soul (oops, did i say soul?). It says more than that. It says that these rights are endowed by "Nature's God", which implies the existence of something higher than nature. Perhaps it's a limitation on my part, but I don't see how this declaration can be construed within an atheistic worldview that makes any sense. That it's more abstract and flexible than "one nation under GOD" isn't the point -- it affirms a theistic worldview (of which Deism is a subset) as the basis for our rights.
The declaration of independence carefully avoids any religion... reflect... a... Deist one Sorry, Deism is a religion. It asserts that a god exists, albeit an impersonal one, and that this "higher power" has granted rights to men. It specifically denies the atheistic worldview that rights are granted by government.
As to the "glorious triumph of rationality", that's another topic (cf. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=76765&cid=6840 035)
It isn't that simple. Questions such as "where did we come from?", "what is the purpose of life?", "what is the basis for morality?" would either have to go unanswered, or be presented from all viewpoints. For example, moral relativism would have to be banned from the schools, since that is a direct consequence of the atheistic worldview.
If the Declaration of Independence were abused in the same manner, of course it should be banned from school. However, the Declaration is not treated as an article of faith that children are expected to publically recite on a daily basis.
What if it were placed on the classroom wall, where children would see it every day?
The atheist can claim that their actions are moral; the real issue is the basis for that claim. If atheism is consistenly applied then the only basis for morality is personal preference. You can claim that your actions are moral; but someone else can do the opposite and likewise claim that their actions are moral. It's the resolution of "is too" / "is not" within an atheistic framework where things become interesting.
Slashdot Mirror
I already run Mac OS X. Why would I want to switch to Linux?
So much for "everything's bigger in Texas".
And after all this time, I thought it was Windows!
Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.
-- Robert Frost
Interesting article on GDP comparisons between the US and Europe.
Pages 116-118 in the first edition. Pages 44-46 in the even older "The Programming Language Pascal", 2nd ed, 1971.
I've been to India. Wonderful people, outstanding food, incredible poverty, poor infrastructure. They have a long way to go before I would classify them as "doing great".
Greed is present regardless of the economic model.
How do you know that what was written on the piece of paper is what was written to the hard drives?
"The majority is always wrong," by which I suppose he meant that principles are not a matter of majority consent.
Neither are they a matter of minority imposition.
They are a matter of personal reflection and commitment to what is right.
This is unsound for two reasons. First, it begs the definition of what is right. You've ruled out the majority; the minority is no better -- what do you have left? Second, it's no different than the ancient formula "everyone does that which is right in their own eyes". That way lies anarchy.
Travelling out of a former republic of the Soviet Union, I set off the metal detector. I was immediately taken to a side room where a man in full military uniform patted me down. Nothing was found, but as I was leaving, they were leading a woman into the same room. On the other hand, in India, they have separate metal detectors for men and women, and curtained off areas, also for the women. Handbags are thoroughly searched; one fellow in front of me had a pack of matches that were found and confiscated. In Germany, my laptop was vacuumed. I inquired, and the lady told me that they were checking for traces of explosives. All she got from me was a lot of dog hair from my golden retriever. I don't recall ever having to power up my PowerBook. It did give the agents in San Jose pause, however, when the "wipe-scan" caused an unknown error. A supervisor was called over said it happens sometimes, and let me go on.
Going through metal detectors in the states, I remove my coat, watch, glasses, wallet, shoes, empty my pockets and take off my belt. At one airport, this still wasn't enough and I set of the detector (don't remember what it was). At LaGuardia, I went through the same routine and made it to the edge of the detector without setting it off, at which point I did a little victory jig -- and prompty set off the detector. The TSB agent was kind enough to show me what had happened by demonstrating how sudden motion can set those things off.
Naturalism assumes, a priori, that there is no God. What evidence, then, would you accept? A miracle? Odds are, instead of adopting a different worldview, the facts would be fit, forcibly if necessary, into the naturalistic worldview. Take, for example, the resurrection of Christ. To the naturalist, he didn't die (discredited), swooned (discredited), was made up (discredited), & etc... Rejection of God is rarely done for rational reasons. Rather, it is the emotional impact of being subject to Someone that is the real reason behind the stated reasons.
Sorry, you're asking this question about a human being? How much do you know about human nature?
;-)
I'm a Calvinist. Does that answer your question?
Whether or not it's safe (as regarding the law), I agree that, in the absence of other information, it's correct to leave it alone, since it ins't my property.
If my electric stops working is it ok for me to plug an extension cord into my neighbors house without his permission just because he doesn't have a lock on the outdoor receptacle?
In the case of the electrical outlet I have to go onto my neighbor's property to use it. With wireless, the neighbor is broadcasting onto my property. In fact, an uprotected linksys network showed up in my Airport menu while I'm composing this reply! The first issue is to note that I know that it isn't my network. Therefore, caution should be used. But I use wireless hotspots which, in some places require payment; while others are free. So a determination needs to be made if the network is public or private. That's harder, since I don't know which neighbor has the network (although I did walk around my neighborhood one night with my 17" PowerBook testing signal strength...). Discretion argues that I shouldn't use it, absent knowing the intent of the owner. But the owner not protecting the network makes it murky. Is he ignorant, or generous?
Did some quick research and came across a different take on this charge
Your real name isn't Michael Valentine Smith, is it?
The desire for changing the pledge is predicated on the basis for that change. The purported reason is that having the phrase "under God" violates the 2nd Amendment. I'm trying to see if this is really the case or if there is a deeper reason, perhaps a general hostility to religion. So I want to know if displaying the DoL, which is a theistic document, in school would be allowed under your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. I don't see why it's so hard getting an answer to this question.
As for "don't force your religion on other peoples' kids", I happen to agree with that position. But I contend that it must extend to atheism as well as theism, and it will be interesting to see how (or even if) a worldview neutral position can be maintained by the Government; especially since one of our founding documents says that the basis of our rights is rooted in a theistic position. Schools, for example, would have to get rid of all moral positions -- both the relativism of atheism and the absolutism of theism -- and I'm not sure I see how this could be done.
Well, thanks for the compliment. I think. ;-)
I'm trying to not be ignorant. But I also think that you've presented me with a false dichotomy. Not praising God's name every minute doesn't imply active promotion of atheism. I don't think I ever said that it did.
In any case, we've come to the heart of the problem. You rightly wrote mention either, and there's a problem. So my question is, how can society function in the absence of a worldview? If neither atheism nor theism can be promoted, what's left? AFAIK, there isn't a "meta-worldview" than can step in.
As for your last comment, I'm sure that there are morally-relativist Christians. However, Christianity and Judaism both affirm that God is the supreme law-giver and that His judgements are final. We may not like them, we may argue against them, but there is no higher court of appeal. So what I don't understand is how morally-relativist Christians defend their position, unless it's a temporary, pragmatic one. But even at that, how then can they pray "Thy will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven"?
I wish one of them might participate at this point...
Such questions (where did we come from, what is the purpose of life, what is the basis of morality) are the topics of class discussion and philosophy, not teachings to students about "the way things are."
Eventually, these discussions must become concrete since philosophy influences everything we do. If you care about consistency, you cannot separate philosophy from actions.
Talking about right vs wrong (for those that don't follow, "moral relativism") does not require advocating a particular relgious stance or faith. Morals are not based on what you believe in or your faith system -- they are your own sense of what is right and what is wrong.
First, morals are based upon what you believe. You cannot separate "this is right/that is wrong" from your philosophical system. Second, that morals "are your own sense of what is right and wrong" begs the question of which philosophy is controlling your belief system. Such a conclusion is demanded by an atheistic worldview; it is not necessarily the conclusion within a theistic worldview.
I do affirm that murder is wrong because God says so; I am not a moral relativist. [Note that I did not use the word 'kill'. Capital punishment is quite moral.] If I were to teach that "killing is wrong because it hurts people", I would have to ask "why is hurting people wrong?" I can name several cultures where hurting other people is not only right, it can be praiseworthy. Saying that killing is wrong because it's against the law begs the question of "why does the law say it's wrong?"
As for teaching my children the basis of right and wrong, I do. And I teach them that the moral relativism which is rampant in school is wrong, and I hope that they'll tangle with their teachers over this.
Your last statement is telling. What it means is that atheists don't understand the morality which is required by their philosophy. They lead what is termed "the unexamined life."
1) it's dead history - we can't change the declaration of independence now no matter how hard we try.
Changing it isn't the issue. The issue is the teaching and display of the contents.
2) kids aren't forced to recite the declaration of independence every single morning
What if this document was hanging on the wall in every classroom?
3) the phrase itself isn't focusing on religion, but on the concept that our rights are not given by the government in england, but inherent in every living soul (oops, did i say soul?).
It says more than that. It says that these rights are endowed by "Nature's God", which implies the existence of something higher than nature. Perhaps it's a limitation on my part, but I don't see how this declaration can be construed within an atheistic worldview that makes any sense. That it's more abstract and flexible than "one nation under GOD" isn't the point -- it affirms a theistic worldview (of which Deism is a subset) as the basis for our rights.
The declaration of independence carefully avoids any religion... reflect ... a ... Deist one Sorry, Deism is a religion. It asserts that a god exists, albeit an impersonal one, and that this "higher power" has granted rights to men. It specifically denies the atheistic worldview that rights are granted by government.
0 035)
As to the "glorious triumph of rationality", that's another topic (cf. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=76765&cid=684
It isn't that simple. Questions such as "where did we come from?", "what is the purpose of life?", "what is the basis for morality?" would either have to go unanswered, or be presented from all viewpoints. For example, moral relativism would have to be banned from the schools, since that is a direct consequence of the atheistic worldview.
If the Declaration of Independence were abused in the same manner, of course it should be banned from school. However, the Declaration is not treated as an article of faith that children are expected to publically recite on a daily basis.
What if it were placed on the classroom wall, where children would see it every day?
The atheist can claim that their actions are moral; the real issue is the basis for that claim. If atheism is consistenly applied then the only basis for morality is personal preference. You can claim that your actions are moral; but someone else can do the opposite and likewise claim that their actions are moral. It's the resolution of "is too" / "is not" within an atheistic framework where things become interesting.
Nor should they be actively endorsing the atheistic viewpoint. Which might make for an interesting discussion of what, then, they can affirm.