There is a problem with believing that a theistic viewpoint of the world is just an alternative to a natural viewpoint of the world.
One fundamental rule that we have humans have found is that complex things come from simple things, unless they are created by an external source. Elements come from protons/neutrons/electrons, compounds come from elements, etc. A bench is less complex than the carpenter that makes it, but that is a created object.
Without having an external creator, everything that exists is derived from something simpler. That is why the building blocks of the universe are almost certainly the most basic elements possible. We have almost certainly not found what these basic elements are, which is why we have such a hard time understanding questions such as what happened at the beginning of time.
God is not a simple being. God is the most complex being that has ever existed (or made up). He (she/it) is omnipotent, which means he has the ability to break the most fundamental laws of physics that we know of. But not only that, God also shares many anthropomorphic qualities such as Love, Jealousy, Compassion, Intolerance, etc. He can know feelings that he has never had, since if he is truly all-knowing then he must be able to know what it feels like to enjoy torturing and killing (which a good God couldn't enjoy). He also has a very different and more complex sense of morality than we do, since any human that acted like God would be considered very evil indeed. He had the capacity and intelligence to create the greatest and most complex beings that humans have come across yet (ourselves).
Anything is possible. Technically there is the possibility that a Supreme Being was the first thing created in the universe, or that he has always existed. But it is the most infinitely improbable idea that humans have ever come up with. For an even slightly rational person to believe this it would take the most powerful proof that anyone has ever had. No booming voice from the sky or personal connection with God would be enough, because there are an infinite amount of more probable explainations than the existance of a Supreme Being. Having a personal belief in God is no different than any other form of schizophrenia.
as for the "time beginning", i would say the big bang. and we currently have no idea what happened before that, hence why i believe that there is something and find atheists rather ridiculous.
Why does the fact that we dont know what there was before the big bang make atheists rediculous?
The fact that some matter/energy either came from nothing or has always been there does not make a God or divine power more plausible. It simply means there are some aspects of physics that we do not understand yet. Our current understanding of the laws of Conservation of Energy is that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but that doesnt necessarily have to be so.
Newtonian mechanics does not allow for special relativity or quantum mechanics, but is still useful for virtually all aspects of engineering and science. Only in rare cases does F=ma break down. This could very well be similar to Conservation of Energy. Perhaps there is a way to create energy, we just havent found it yet.
And there is also the possibility that all of the matter/energy in the universe has simply always been here. Just because everything in our narrow viewpoint of the world has a beginning and end doesnt mean everything has to follow the same pattern.
You dont have to create a supreme being to explain the beginning of time. In fact it just complicates things because then you have to explain where the supreme being came from.
The basic connection is that evolution helps create a "natural" world where God is not needed. One of the fundamental reason why people "need" their faith in a god is because it explains the unexplainable. Every new peice of information that gives another explanation makes their faith just a little less reasonable.
The other major connection is that a "natural" world means a world without a purpose. A "natural" world means a world without right and wrong. Without good and evil. God gives us a world where good people are good, bad people are evil, and there is a purpose for all of it.
Evolution gives us a world where there is no purpose, and that scares people into irrational beliefs.
What is the shadowbane trap? I used to like that game when I was in school; I only stopped when I had too much work to spend that much time on a game. Needed some kind of quest system, but was far more fun than games like WOW because things you did actually mattered on a large scale.
You mean paying more for something that will take longer to download than going to the rental store?
It is pretty well accepted that people will pay for extra convenience. $0.50 more for a movie that you can download to your Tivo is more convenient than having to go to your local rental store.
And it is probably even cheaper if you add in the transportation costs that it would take to go to the rental store. At 25mpg @ $2.50/gallon and $0.05 per mile for repair costs, that is $0.15 per mile. If the rental store is even 1.7 miles out of your way, it is cheaper to download the movie.
Why would this be a bad thing? I doubt that it is even possible, but the anonymity of the internet is basically the only thing that takes away its credibility. Internet security would be much easier, and internet commerce could become even more accepted and prevelant.
You cannot just say whatever you want in a newspaper or in a public forum without people knowing who you are. Why should you be able to do it on the internet?
I don't require anybody's approval or support to have a relationship with God. Period.
I dont care if you have a relationship with your dog Spot. My only point was that you were correcting someone else with a false argument. You started the argument.
You said that "Christ defined what Christianity is." Based on your later arguments, you should have just said "I define what Christianity is for me" That is a valid argument. You can believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster for all I care, as you would just as much common sense as any Christians.
But you were trying to say that someone was wrong, and implied that you were correct. I dont care if you want to think the world is flat, but if you try to argue your point then dont expect for people to agree with you.
As I said in another post, we have no writings that can reasonably be believed to be the exact words of Jesus Christ. It is arguable that we have no texts that were written by anyone who had ever met Jesus. Our knowledge of the man comes from stories and allegories, most of which are found in the New Testament. That is where our knowledge of Jesus comes from. And that is what defines Christianity.
You can create your own definitions for words if you like, but dont expect other people to agree with them.
What's wrong with the guy having his own personal religion? And why can't he apply the label "Christian"? I mean, that's a pretty broad label, so leave him be, I say.
He can have whatever beliefs he wants, I was responding to this comment (with my original post) that he made earlier:
No. Christ defined what Christianity is.
He can have whatever relgious beliefs that he wants, but to have a meaningful conversation then you have to use your words correctly. If I mistake France and Italy in a discussion about ancient Rome, and start to talk about the glorious civilization of Gual that conquered most of the known world, I am just confusing the situation. Changing the definition of well accepted words is generally not acceptable.
Take the word "faggot". It has had many definitions throughout history, from a bundle of sticks to men hired into military service just to fill out the ranks to a manufactured vote for party purposes. But if you go to a homosexual march/rally and say "Lets burn some faggots", it doesnt matter if you actually mean a bundle of sticks. It is the wrong word in today's society, irregardless of if it was the correct word hundreds of years ago.
Christian is the wrong word if you do not agree with the Council of Nicea's version of Christ. You can call yourself a Gnostic, a Marcionist, or even a Diest. But Christian is the wrong word. It is impossible to study comparative religion if you cannot agree to adhere to the accepted vocabulary.
so leave him be, I say.
I would have left him be, but he was telling someone else that they were wrong. Once you try to criticize or correct others you lose all rights to being left alone.
I never really even had much of a problem with him calling himself a Christian in the first place. It was the fact that he claimed Jesus Christ defined what Christianity is. We have no writings that can reasonably be believed to be the exact words of Jesus Christ. It is arguable that we have no texts that were written by anyone who had ever met Jesus. Our knowledge of the man comes from stories and allegories, most of which are found in the New Testament. That is where our knowledge of Jesus comes from. And that is what defines Christianity.
I deny anybody the authority to tell me what is, or is not, a Christian.
You seam to be simply changing the definitions of words just to suit your own viewpoints. That comment is no different than my saying:
I deny anybody the authority to tell me what is, or is not, a Honda Civic. I dont care if you call it a Ford Mustang. Not you, not Ford, not Honda, not Car and Driver Magazine. I am responsible for my own beliefs. It's between me and my car. Everybody else can butt out, unless they happen to be interested in my understanding of my car. In which case, I'll be glad to share what I've got.
If you went to a car mechanic and demanded that you get a Mustang intake manifold they would hardly take you seriously. The early Christians defined what it is to be Christian, just as Honda defined what is a Civic. If everyone just went around calling trees -> rocks and telephones -> staplers, then how could you possibly have a meaningful conversation with anyone?
If you are just making up your own faith based on what you hope God is like, that is even less worthy of respect than fundamentalists. At least they can blame it on being brainwashed.
No. Christ defined what Christianity is. These councils and conclaves and Diets of Worms defined the power structure that they wished to leverage based on religious orthodoxy.
But these councils are the ones who defined our knowledge of Jesus. They decided what books to include in the Bible, and which ones didnt fit their view of who Jesus was. There are no historical accounts of Jesus's life (there are some questionable sources) other than in the Bible that these councils have provided. Your view of Christ is their view of Christ, unless you are just making things up on your own.
There were other views of Christ that survived until the sixth century, such as Gnosticism and Marcionism, but they would be considered heretical by today's standards simply because they did not agree with the council of Nicea.
Belief in Jesus Christ as a figure of religous importance cannot be seperated from the early Catholic Church because they are the ones who defined what being a Christian is. Other denominations have revised their views on some of the Catholic dogma, but the essential teachings of Jesus are the same. There are no other sources (except for old Gnostic texts and possibly the Book of Mormon) to use towards finding another interpretations of Christ's teachings.
Who's offering the $10,000 for the report proving global warming is our fault?
There are billions of dollars being spent on studies to show that global warming is our fault. http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/289.pdf While the study does conclude that "Additional work is needed to explore the individual relationships between individual funders and particular recipients", it does say that "A cursory glimpse of the list of recipients of those private funds reveals that the vast majority are spent by groups favoring restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions"
While that does not mean that all of these studies showing the effects of global warming are false, it does show that they are just as financially motivated. Only about $50 million is spent each year by private foundations for research by universities and non-profits, but those funds are quite important to the bottom lines of those universities.
When you are paid by a company called "Green Earth" (fictional company I think) to research global warming, you can be pretty sure that they will stop that funding if you keep saying that global warming is not a problem and we should start drilling for oil in Alaska.
But it sure the hell does mean they're financially motivated. Here's what should happen: Exxon should hire scientists to research this. If the report comes up against global warming, the scientists get $10,000 grand and stay employed. If the report comes up proving global warming is our fault, the scientists get $10,000 and stay employed.
There is nothing wrong with funding a study with a particular purpose in mind. The problem only comes when they falsify data to prove something that is false. Very little research would be done in this country if no one was allowed to have an agenda.
That is why all studies need to be peer reviewed. Almost anyone doing research on anything has an agenda, and it usually is money. If I am trying to invent a more efficient solar cell, I have an agenda to sell those solar cells for money. But first I need to prove that it works to other scientists (or more specifically to investors).
ExxonMobil is not doing anything wrong by offerring $10,000 for research. They will be doing something wrong if they find someone willing to fabricate information. I have no love for Exxon, and I am pretty sure they would do that if needed. That would be news worthy, but this story is not. It is just FUD from the global warming crowd.
35mm film looks much better than DVD. 70mm film looks immensely better than DVD
I doubt that anyone thinks 70mm film looks immenselybetter than DVDs. My DVDs already look just fine as far as im concerned, and I could probably only tell the difference between film and DVD if they were side by side. While 70mm is definetly better, I wouldnt say it is much better.
It is like saying $255 million is immensely more than $254 million. $1 million dollars is ALOT of money to me, but if I already had $254 million I doubt that I would in awe of someone who had $255 million.
Maybe it is just me, but if I never went to a movie theatre again I doubt I would ever miss the better quality video. I am just too damn impatient to wait for the DVD release. --
However, I think that all sources of electricity should be treated equally. A per-megawatt subsidy to companies and individuals producing power should be implemented, and the electrical grid upgraded to allow the generation methods to compete fairly.
Uh, that makes no sense. Government subsidies are only needed if you need to give one or more types of power generation an artificial edge. That is the exact opposite of "competing fairly". It still might be the right thing to do if it stops our reliance on oil, but it definetly isnt evening the playing field.
The major problem with oil is that it truly is incredibly cheap. Incredibly cheap. It is why our world is so reliant on oil, because it is so much more economical than any alternatives. The problem is that the oil will eventually run out, and we are damaging our environment in the process. Subsidies would have nothing to do with making the competition fair. Subsidies are about making it unfair for the oil companies.
Yes I saw the money laundering quote. What I don't see is any rational to it. First, they are not members of the board & have not been since prior to the law that is being used to declare the transactions illegal. Since the US constitution prohibits retro-active laws, everything they did while board members was legal - even here.
If it ends up that they didnt break any laws then they will be set free. As I said in a different post, they arent being sent to Guantanamo. They probably have their own high priced lawyers that will get them out if they have a case.
The stance of the U.S. government is that websites like Neteller are helping Americans break the law. It is basically the same thing as a drug cartel in a country where drugs are legal. The U.S. government is probably trying to find some way to charge them of something. Even if it doesnt have to do with gambling. It is the same thing as when we put Al Capone in jail for tax evasion, they didnt have to catch him killing someone to put him in jail.
They dont want people helping Americans gamble online. They will do anything in their legal power to stop that, which includes detaining people who come onto U.S. soil who are committing business practices that they dont like. They may not be able to successfully charge them with something, but the fear of prosecution might be enough to stop them from facilitating illegal activities of Americans.
And it worked, because it seams Neteller is no longer accepting money from U.S. citizens.
(I once again want to mention that I think our laws regarding Online Gambling are ridiculous, but that isnt the point) --
If you dont like the law then you dont have to visit the U.S.
This early adopter is proving that you *can* be self-sufficient using solar energy. That's a big deal.
Did anyone actually ever think that you couldnt be self-sufficient with solar energy? (well in the last 10 years anyway) I always just thought that cost was the only issue. The solar panels combined with the storage of the energy for when the sun isnt out as much (winter) is what keeps the price high for a truly self-sufficient solar home. This guy hasnt proven anything, because the price is still high.
A guy who figures out how to do it with only $50k will be news. I would assume anyone could find some way to make an off the grid home if given $500k. -- --
1. The act of facilitating banking transactions between US & non US banks is legal. 2. The holder of the US bank accounts and the holders of the non US bank accounts are - AFAIK have not been convicted of money laundering. 3. The act of transferring money from UK banks to accounts owned by Online Gambling corperations is legal.
Actually, they are being arresting because of money laundering. The complete release from the U.S. Attorney's office declares : "U.S. Charges Two Founders of Payment Services Company with Laundering Billions of Dollars of Internet Gambling Proceeds "
They are being arrested for creating a service that allows Americans to send money to online casinos. That is what the U.S. is declaring is illegal. I think it is an incredibly stupid law, but that doesnt mean that the U.S. doesnt have the right to do so. If they are found innocent of money laundering then they will be sent free. I am sure they have plenty of money to get high priced lawyers.
A more correct analogy is, should the owner of Jack Daniels be arrested if he stops in Saudi Arabia while traveling from South Africa to Greece? Or alternately, should the owner of a Jamaican distiller be arrested for allowing Americans to make an online purchase of Moonshine & send it to a Bermuda address?
Now you are using a false analogy. It would be more correct if you were looking at a situation such as:
1) An American company (Company X) builds an online store where you can buy Jack Daniels. 2) Another American company (Company Y) sets up a service that sends money to Company X, recieves the product, and then ships the Jack Daniels to the original customer. Company Y also sends money to other services such as jean companies and art studios. 3) A Saudi Arabian citizen uses Company Y to buy alchohol and ship it to Saudi Arabia. (just like Neteller giving money back to American citizens) 4) The Saudi Arabian government considers alchohol and the distribution of alchohol to its citizens to be illegal.
If the owners of Company Y travelled to Saudi Arabia, they would have every right to arrest them for facilitating the distribution of alchohol to their citizens. We might think its a crappy law, but then dont go to Saudi Arabia. If the American government then thought that the Saudi Arabian government had no right to do this, we would either go to war with, stop trading with them, or try to put other sanctions on them.
Hopefully the international community will punish the U.S. for these stupid laws, but until that happens there is nothing wrong with this.
The dictator in your example broke international law, which is what defines "crimes against humanity." The jurisdiction for international laws requires that you be on planet Earth, so yes, what the dictator did was illegal when and where they did it. Therefore your example is irrelevant.
International law is only enforceable because there are more countries with more powerful militaries that agree with the laws. If Country X had the most powerful military in the world, and Countries A-W had more military strength than the rest of the world combined, then our international laws would not matter very much. Any group of countries can make any number of international laws that they want. But they would have to have the military might to back it up. International laws are no more powerful than any individual country's laws, except there are generally more countries involved that are willing to back up international laws.
These people broke U.S. laws while they were in another country. That is basically the same as breaking an international law. The only difference is that only the U.S. will try to catch them and prosecute them, instead of the entire international community. It also means that the U.S. will probably not invade a sovereign country to extricate them from another country, but will still arrest them if they come to the U.S.
Analogies are like assholes. Everyone has one and they all stink.
There are plenty of stupid sayings like this that someone can use to refute almost any argument when they have no other leg to stand on. Its kind of like making fun of misspellings, you use it when you have nothing else reasonable to say. Analogies can be very useful for explaining situations, expecially when someone is too emotionally involved with a subject to think about it rationally.
except that as someone else pointed out the people arrested weren't even break US law
If that is the case then they will be set free. Im sure they have plenty of money to hire good lawyers. It isnt like they are being sent to Guantanamo. But I thought there were laws against facilitating American's sending money to online gambling institutions. I may be wrong, and if I am and they havent broken other laws then they will be set free. Not everyone who is arrested is charged with a crime if it is found that they didnt technically break any laws. Mafia bosses were arrested all of the time and sent free because of technicalities like this. --
I'm curious why you think it will pay itself off in a scant 30 years? From what I can tell he'll be dead before he starts realizing cost savings from this.
He only paid $100k of his own money for it. So if his electric bill is approximatly $277/month (not hard to believe expecially since he is making hydrogen for his car), it will have paid itself off in 30 years.
Now it would take alot longer for all of the equipment supplied by donations to be paid off, but that wasnt what I was referring to.
Well I am glad that he was able to reduce his electric bill by a few thousand dollars a year. Too bad it cost him $100k to do it (and $400k from donations). I guess it will probably pay off for him in about 30 years.
I would love to find companies (and government agencies) willing to give me $400k to put additions onto my home.
Oh no, I misspelled a word (barely) at 1:30 in the morning while reading Slashdot shortly before going to bed. How will I ever live with myself?
Its a sad testament to humanity that there are adults (or at least teenagers) who waste their time searching online message boards for misspellings so that they can point them out just to make themselves feel smarter. It is basically no better than having a discussion with an adult and just deciding to call them a "poopy-head".
I guess if I was an actual reporter who employed proofreaders there would be no excuse for misspelling words. But on an online message board the standards are not that high.
And who are you to comment on poor spelling or grammar anyway? "Agreed" is not a sentence on its own (it is a fragment), you should have said something along the lines of "I agree." See how ridiculous I sound for pointing out something so trivial?
I never said I thought our laws on internet gambling are just laws. And I wasnt referring to the actual laws of Cuba, it was a hypothetical situation I was referring to. I could just as easily used "Country X", I just used a country that is close to the US and hostile.
None of that makes the analogy wrong. It was late at night when I posted, so I probably should have picked a better analogy but didnt.
How about some dictator of a country (Country X) killing hundreds of thousands of his own citizens, as well as any foreign citizens stupid enough to enter his country. By his laws it is completely lawful for him to do so. Lets just say there are 23 other countries (Countries A - W) in the world that have similar laws allowing dictators to kill whoever they want to in their own country.
If the dictator of Country X decided to travel to San Deigo for vacation, I would like to believe that the United States has every right to arrest him for crimes against humanity even if that isnt against the law in his country. He didnt even break the law in our country, but I still dont think it is wrong to detain him. Even if there are a large number of other countries that agree with his laws, I still dont think it is wrong to arrest this man.
I think it's absurd that someone can be charged for something they did that was legal when and where they did it.
So if a citizen of Cuba was running a crime cartel that is killing thousands of Americans, and then that person decided to fly to America, you think that the US would have no right to arrest him? What if the Cuban government doesnt consider his acts illegal because of their stance on our country?
BTW, I think that this country's laws regarding online gambling are rediculous. Almost as rediculous as your argument.
The US is actually doing *exactly* that in Iraq: Do things our "democratic" way or we'll stay here and keep killing people. You'd see this if you'd actually look at things happening from a distance. The current not-yet-civil war is a direct result of the US removing the one authority figure in charge, and trying to democratize the country. I personally believe that Iraq isn't A> ready B> helped with democracy.
You are comparing deposing a dictator who has killed hundreds of thousands of his own people with invading Tibet? You are comparing helping a country hold formal elections with forcing a country to assimilate into another? That is simply rediculous.
No one ever forces another country's citizens to choose a Democracy. Every human being likes to think he has some control over his life, so Democracy is the default government that any group of citizens would choose. But things like fear of death from death squads can make people decide that the freedom of a democracy is not worth it. It takes a large country with a large military and a conscience (and a need for oil) to help them.
The only problem with Democracy is that it doesnt work when you have people in power who are against the democratic process. This is why it is very hard to get a democracy to work, because there are always going to be people with power who do not want to share that power with the common people. Even in the US we have our corporations who strip power from regular citizens.
All the US is trying to do is to help the average Iraqi citizen gain control of their country. That takes stoping violent men. Violent men who are willing to kill anyone just to stop the people of Iraq from gaining control of their government. In war innocent people die right along violent men, but at least they are dying for a good cause. Hundreds of thousands of innocent people die every year for various reasons from crime to car crashes, but at the least the citizens of Iraq are dying to create themselves a free nation.
You may not agree that the Iraqis want or deserve to run their own country, but to compare the Iraq war to the invasion of Tibet is just ludicrous.
Wow, so all humans have to do is lower our intelligence to that of dogs and all wars would stop? I actually agree with you on that, but I dont think it is going to happen any time soon.
I do not believe that massive power structures are inherent to human nature, as there are many societies which avoid them.
You are correct, not all human societies build these power structures seen in the civilized world. There have been plenty of societies that have been more tribal, nomadic, etc. But the problem is that those societies eventually get wiped out by societies that can make war. There are probably some societies like these left in the world today, but only because it is not worth wiping them out yet. Remember that the only reason pacifists can survive is if non-pacifists are there to protect them.
For world peace to work, ALL societies in the world have to decide to create small governments without territorial borders. It only takes ONE society on the ENTIRE planet to through off the balance again and start wars. Either they take over the world, or other groups band together to stop them (thus creating another massive power structure).
So I guess it is wrong to say that war is inevitable. It would be better to say that while humans are still smarter than your average dog, war is inevitable.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a problem with believing that a theistic viewpoint of the world is just an alternative to a natural viewpoint of the world.
One fundamental rule that we have humans have found is that complex things come from simple things, unless they are created by an external source. Elements come from protons/neutrons/electrons, compounds come from elements, etc. A bench is less complex than the carpenter that makes it, but that is a created object.
Without having an external creator, everything that exists is derived from something simpler. That is why the building blocks of the universe are almost certainly the most basic elements possible. We have almost certainly not found what these basic elements are, which is why we have such a hard time understanding questions such as what happened at the beginning of time.
God is not a simple being. God is the most complex being that has ever existed (or made up). He (she/it) is omnipotent, which means he has the ability to break the most fundamental laws of physics that we know of. But not only that, God also shares many anthropomorphic qualities such as Love, Jealousy, Compassion, Intolerance, etc. He can know feelings that he has never had, since if he is truly all-knowing then he must be able to know what it feels like to enjoy torturing and killing (which a good God couldn't enjoy). He also has a very different and more complex sense of morality than we do, since any human that acted like God would be considered very evil indeed. He had the capacity and intelligence to create the greatest and most complex beings that humans have come across yet (ourselves).
Anything is possible. Technically there is the possibility that a Supreme Being was the first thing created in the universe, or that he has always existed. But it is the most infinitely improbable idea that humans have ever come up with. For an even slightly rational person to believe this it would take the most powerful proof that anyone has ever had. No booming voice from the sky or personal connection with God would be enough, because there are an infinite amount of more probable explainations than the existance of a Supreme Being. Having a personal belief in God is no different than any other form of schizophrenia.
--
as for the "time beginning", i would say the big bang. and we currently have no idea what happened before that, hence why i believe that there is something and find atheists rather ridiculous.
Why does the fact that we dont know what there was before the big bang make atheists rediculous?
The fact that some matter/energy either came from nothing or has always been there does not make a God or divine power more plausible. It simply means there are some aspects of physics that we do not understand yet. Our current understanding of the laws of Conservation of Energy is that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but that doesnt necessarily have to be so.
Newtonian mechanics does not allow for special relativity or quantum mechanics, but is still useful for virtually all aspects of engineering and science. Only in rare cases does F=ma break down. This could very well be similar to Conservation of Energy. Perhaps there is a way to create energy, we just havent found it yet.
And there is also the possibility that all of the matter/energy in the universe has simply always been here. Just because everything in our narrow viewpoint of the world has a beginning and end doesnt mean everything has to follow the same pattern.
You dont have to create a supreme being to explain the beginning of time. In fact it just complicates things because then you have to explain where the supreme being came from.
But where is the connection with evolution?
The basic connection is that evolution helps create a "natural" world where God is not needed. One of the fundamental reason why people "need" their faith in a god is because it explains the unexplainable. Every new peice of information that gives another explanation makes their faith just a little less reasonable.
The other major connection is that a "natural" world means a world without a purpose. A "natural" world means a world without right and wrong. Without good and evil. God gives us a world where good people are good, bad people are evil, and there is a purpose for all of it.
Evolution gives us a world where there is no purpose, and that scares people into irrational beliefs.
--
without falling into the shadowbane trap...
What is the shadowbane trap? I used to like that game when I was in school; I only stopped when I had too much work to spend that much time on a game. Needed some kind of quest system, but was far more fun than games like WOW because things you did actually mattered on a large scale.
--
You mean paying more for something that will take longer to download than going to the rental store?
It is pretty well accepted that people will pay for extra convenience. $0.50 more for a movie that you can download to your Tivo is more convenient than having to go to your local rental store.
And it is probably even cheaper if you add in the transportation costs that it would take to go to the rental store. At 25mpg @ $2.50/gallon and $0.05 per mile for repair costs, that is $0.15 per mile. If the rental store is even 1.7 miles out of your way, it is cheaper to download the movie.
--
Why would this be a bad thing? I doubt that it is even possible, but the anonymity of the internet is basically the only thing that takes away its credibility. Internet security would be much easier, and internet commerce could become even more accepted and prevelant.
You cannot just say whatever you want in a newspaper or in a public forum without people knowing who you are. Why should you be able to do it on the internet?
--
I don't require anybody's approval or support to have a relationship with God. Period.
I dont care if you have a relationship with your dog Spot. My only point was that you were correcting someone else with a false argument. You started the argument.
You said that "Christ defined what Christianity is." Based on your later arguments, you should have just said "I define what Christianity is for me" That is a valid argument. You can believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster for all I care, as you would just as much common sense as any Christians.
But you were trying to say that someone was wrong, and implied that you were correct. I dont care if you want to think the world is flat, but if you try to argue your point then dont expect for people to agree with you.
As I said in another post, we have no writings that can reasonably be believed to be the exact words of Jesus Christ. It is arguable that we have no texts that were written by anyone who had ever met Jesus. Our knowledge of the man comes from stories and allegories, most of which are found in the New Testament. That is where our knowledge of Jesus comes from. And that is what defines Christianity.
You can create your own definitions for words if you like, but dont expect other people to agree with them.
--
What's wrong with the guy having his own personal religion? And why can't he apply the label "Christian"? I mean, that's a pretty broad label, so leave him be, I say.
He can have whatever beliefs he wants, I was responding to this comment (with my original post) that he made earlier:
No. Christ defined what Christianity is.
He can have whatever relgious beliefs that he wants, but to have a meaningful conversation then you have to use your words correctly. If I mistake France and Italy in a discussion about ancient Rome, and start to talk about the glorious civilization of Gual that conquered most of the known world, I am just confusing the situation. Changing the definition of well accepted words is generally not acceptable.
Take the word "faggot". It has had many definitions throughout history, from a bundle of sticks to men hired into military service just to fill out the ranks to a manufactured vote for party purposes. But if you go to a homosexual march/rally and say "Lets burn some faggots", it doesnt matter if you actually mean a bundle of sticks. It is the wrong word in today's society, irregardless of if it was the correct word hundreds of years ago.
Christian is the wrong word if you do not agree with the Council of Nicea's version of Christ. You can call yourself a Gnostic, a Marcionist, or even a Diest. But Christian is the wrong word. It is impossible to study comparative religion if you cannot agree to adhere to the accepted vocabulary.
so leave him be, I say.
I would have left him be, but he was telling someone else that they were wrong. Once you try to criticize or correct others you lose all rights to being left alone.
I never really even had much of a problem with him calling himself a Christian in the first place. It was the fact that he claimed Jesus Christ defined what Christianity is. We have no writings that can reasonably be believed to be the exact words of Jesus Christ. It is arguable that we have no texts that were written by anyone who had ever met Jesus. Our knowledge of the man comes from stories and allegories, most of which are found in the New Testament. That is where our knowledge of Jesus comes from. And that is what defines Christianity.
--
I deny anybody the authority to tell me what is, or is not, a Christian.
You seam to be simply changing the definitions of words just to suit your own viewpoints. That comment is no different than my saying:
I deny anybody the authority to tell me what is, or is not, a Honda Civic. I dont care if you call it a Ford Mustang. Not you, not Ford, not Honda, not Car and Driver Magazine. I am responsible for my own beliefs. It's between me and my car. Everybody else can butt out, unless they happen to be interested in my understanding of my car. In which case, I'll be glad to share what I've got.
If you went to a car mechanic and demanded that you get a Mustang intake manifold they would hardly take you seriously. The early Christians defined what it is to be Christian, just as Honda defined what is a Civic. If everyone just went around calling trees -> rocks and telephones -> staplers, then how could you possibly have a meaningful conversation with anyone?
If you are just making up your own faith based on what you hope God is like, that is even less worthy of respect than fundamentalists. At least they can blame it on being brainwashed.
--
No. Christ defined what Christianity is. These councils and conclaves and Diets of Worms defined the power structure that they wished to leverage based on religious orthodoxy.
But these councils are the ones who defined our knowledge of Jesus. They decided what books to include in the Bible, and which ones didnt fit their view of who Jesus was. There are no historical accounts of Jesus's life (there are some questionable sources) other than in the Bible that these councils have provided. Your view of Christ is their view of Christ, unless you are just making things up on your own.
There were other views of Christ that survived until the sixth century, such as Gnosticism and Marcionism, but they would be considered heretical by today's standards simply because they did not agree with the council of Nicea.
Belief in Jesus Christ as a figure of religous importance cannot be seperated from the early Catholic Church because they are the ones who defined what being a Christian is. Other denominations have revised their views on some of the Catholic dogma, but the essential teachings of Jesus are the same. There are no other sources (except for old Gnostic texts and possibly the Book of Mormon) to use towards finding another interpretations of Christ's teachings.
--
Who's offering the $10,000 for the report proving global warming is our fault?
There are billions of dollars being spent on studies to show that global warming is our fault. http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/289.pdf While the study does conclude that "Additional work is needed to explore the individual relationships between individual funders and particular recipients", it does say that "A cursory glimpse of the list of recipients of those private funds reveals that the vast majority are spent by groups favoring restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions"
While that does not mean that all of these studies showing the effects of global warming are false, it does show that they are just as financially motivated. Only about $50 million is spent each year by private foundations for research by universities and non-profits, but those funds are quite important to the bottom lines of those universities.
When you are paid by a company called "Green Earth" (fictional company I think) to research global warming, you can be pretty sure that they will stop that funding if you keep saying that global warming is not a problem and we should start drilling for oil in Alaska.
But it sure the hell does mean they're financially motivated. Here's what should happen: Exxon should hire scientists to research this. If the report comes up against global warming, the scientists get $10,000 grand and stay employed. If the report comes up proving global warming is our fault, the scientists get $10,000 and stay employed.
There is nothing wrong with funding a study with a particular purpose in mind. The problem only comes when they falsify data to prove something that is false. Very little research would be done in this country if no one was allowed to have an agenda.
That is why all studies need to be peer reviewed. Almost anyone doing research on anything has an agenda, and it usually is money. If I am trying to invent a more efficient solar cell, I have an agenda to sell those solar cells for money. But first I need to prove that it works to other scientists (or more specifically to investors).
ExxonMobil is not doing anything wrong by offerring $10,000 for research. They will be doing something wrong if they find someone willing to fabricate information. I have no love for Exxon, and I am pretty sure they would do that if needed. That would be news worthy, but this story is not. It is just FUD from the global warming crowd.
--
35mm film looks much better than DVD. 70mm film looks immensely better than DVD
I doubt that anyone thinks 70mm film looks immenselybetter than DVDs. My DVDs already look just fine as far as im concerned, and I could probably only tell the difference between film and DVD if they were side by side. While 70mm is definetly better, I wouldnt say it is much better.
It is like saying $255 million is immensely more than $254 million. $1 million dollars is ALOT of money to me, but if I already had $254 million I doubt that I would in awe of someone who had $255 million.
Maybe it is just me, but if I never went to a movie theatre again I doubt I would ever miss the better quality video. I am just too damn impatient to wait for the DVD release.
--
Wait for the baby-boomers to die off. Suddenly energy, housing, and jobs will become plentiful. ;)
:-(
Too bad all of those baby boomers had kids also.
--
However, I think that all sources of electricity should be treated equally. A per-megawatt subsidy to companies and individuals producing power should be implemented, and the electrical grid upgraded to allow the generation methods to compete fairly.
Uh, that makes no sense. Government subsidies are only needed if you need to give one or more types of power generation an artificial edge. That is the exact opposite of "competing fairly". It still might be the right thing to do if it stops our reliance on oil, but it definetly isnt evening the playing field.
The major problem with oil is that it truly is incredibly cheap. Incredibly cheap. It is why our world is so reliant on oil, because it is so much more economical than any alternatives. The problem is that the oil will eventually run out, and we are damaging our environment in the process. Subsidies would have nothing to do with making the competition fair. Subsidies are about making it unfair for the oil companies.
And that is a good thing.
--
Yes I saw the money laundering quote. What I don't see is any rational to it. First, they are not members of the board & have not been since prior to the law that is being used to declare the transactions illegal. Since the US constitution prohibits retro-active laws, everything they did while board members was legal - even here.
If it ends up that they didnt break any laws then they will be set free. As I said in a different post, they arent being sent to Guantanamo. They probably have their own high priced lawyers that will get them out if they have a case.
The stance of the U.S. government is that websites like Neteller are helping Americans break the law. It is basically the same thing as a drug cartel in a country where drugs are legal. The U.S. government is probably trying to find some way to charge them of something. Even if it doesnt have to do with gambling. It is the same thing as when we put Al Capone in jail for tax evasion, they didnt have to catch him killing someone to put him in jail.
They dont want people helping Americans gamble online. They will do anything in their legal power to stop that, which includes detaining people who come onto U.S. soil who are committing business practices that they dont like. They may not be able to successfully charge them with something, but the fear of prosecution might be enough to stop them from facilitating illegal activities of Americans.
And it worked, because it seams Neteller is no longer accepting money from U.S. citizens.
(I once again want to mention that I think our laws regarding Online Gambling are ridiculous, but that isnt the point)
--
If you dont like the law then you dont have to visit the U.S.
This early adopter is proving that you *can* be self-sufficient using solar energy. That's a big deal.
Did anyone actually ever think that you couldnt be self-sufficient with solar energy? (well in the last 10 years anyway) I always just thought that cost was the only issue. The solar panels combined with the storage of the energy for when the sun isnt out as much (winter) is what keeps the price high for a truly self-sufficient solar home. This guy hasnt proven anything, because the price is still high.
A guy who figures out how to do it with only $50k will be news. I would assume anyone could find some way to make an off the grid home if given $500k.
--
--
1. The act of facilitating banking transactions between US & non US banks is legal.
2. The holder of the US bank accounts and the holders of the non US bank accounts are - AFAIK have not been convicted of money laundering.
3. The act of transferring money from UK banks to accounts owned by Online Gambling corperations is legal.
Actually, they are being arresting because of money laundering. The complete release from the U.S. Attorney's office declares : "U.S. Charges Two Founders of Payment Services Company with Laundering Billions of Dollars of Internet Gambling Proceeds "
They are being arrested for creating a service that allows Americans to send money to online casinos. That is what the U.S. is declaring is illegal. I think it is an incredibly stupid law, but that doesnt mean that the U.S. doesnt have the right to do so. If they are found innocent of money laundering then they will be sent free. I am sure they have plenty of money to get high priced lawyers.
A more correct analogy is, should the owner of Jack Daniels be arrested if he stops in Saudi Arabia while traveling from South Africa to Greece? Or alternately, should the owner of a Jamaican distiller be arrested for allowing Americans to make an online purchase of Moonshine & send it to a Bermuda address?
Now you are using a false analogy. It would be more correct if you were looking at a situation such as:
1) An American company (Company X) builds an online store where you can buy Jack Daniels.
2) Another American company (Company Y) sets up a service that sends money to Company X, recieves the product, and then ships the Jack Daniels to the original customer. Company Y also sends money to other services such as jean companies and art studios.
3) A Saudi Arabian citizen uses Company Y to buy alchohol and ship it to Saudi Arabia. (just like Neteller giving money back to American citizens)
4) The Saudi Arabian government considers alchohol and the distribution of alchohol to its citizens to be illegal.
If the owners of Company Y travelled to Saudi Arabia, they would have every right to arrest them for facilitating the distribution of alchohol to their citizens. We might think its a crappy law, but then dont go to Saudi Arabia. If the American government then thought that the Saudi Arabian government had no right to do this, we would either go to war with, stop trading with them, or try to put other sanctions on them.
Hopefully the international community will punish the U.S. for these stupid laws, but until that happens there is nothing wrong with this.
--
The dictator in your example broke international law, which is what defines "crimes against humanity." The jurisdiction for international laws requires that you be on planet Earth, so yes, what the dictator did was illegal when and where they did it. Therefore your example is irrelevant.
International law is only enforceable because there are more countries with more powerful militaries that agree with the laws. If Country X had the most powerful military in the world, and Countries A-W had more military strength than the rest of the world combined, then our international laws would not matter very much. Any group of countries can make any number of international laws that they want. But they would have to have the military might to back it up. International laws are no more powerful than any individual country's laws, except there are generally more countries involved that are willing to back up international laws.
These people broke U.S. laws while they were in another country. That is basically the same as breaking an international law. The only difference is that only the U.S. will try to catch them and prosecute them, instead of the entire international community. It also means that the U.S. will probably not invade a sovereign country to extricate them from another country, but will still arrest them if they come to the U.S.
Analogies are like assholes. Everyone has one and they all stink.
There are plenty of stupid sayings like this that someone can use to refute almost any argument when they have no other leg to stand on. Its kind of like making fun of misspellings, you use it when you have nothing else reasonable to say. Analogies can be very useful for explaining situations, expecially when someone is too emotionally involved with a subject to think about it rationally.
except that as someone else pointed out the people arrested weren't even break US law
If that is the case then they will be set free. Im sure they have plenty of money to hire good lawyers. It isnt like they are being sent to Guantanamo. But I thought there were laws against facilitating American's sending money to online gambling institutions. I may be wrong, and if I am and they havent broken other laws then they will be set free. Not everyone who is arrested is charged with a crime if it is found that they didnt technically break any laws. Mafia bosses were arrested all of the time and sent free because of technicalities like this.
--
I'm curious why you think it will pay itself off in a scant 30 years? From what I can tell he'll be dead before he starts realizing cost savings from this.
He only paid $100k of his own money for it. So if his electric bill is approximatly $277/month (not hard to believe expecially since he is making hydrogen for his car), it will have paid itself off in 30 years.
Now it would take alot longer for all of the equipment supplied by donations to be paid off, but that wasnt what I was referring to.
Well I am glad that he was able to reduce his electric bill by a few thousand dollars a year. Too bad it cost him $100k to do it (and $400k from donations). I guess it will probably pay off for him in about 30 years.
I would love to find companies (and government agencies) willing to give me $400k to put additions onto my home.
--
Oh no, I misspelled a word (barely) at 1:30 in the morning while reading Slashdot shortly before going to bed. How will I ever live with myself?
Its a sad testament to humanity that there are adults (or at least teenagers) who waste their time searching online message boards for misspellings so that they can point them out just to make themselves feel smarter. It is basically no better than having a discussion with an adult and just deciding to call them a "poopy-head".
I guess if I was an actual reporter who employed proofreaders there would be no excuse for misspelling words. But on an online message board the standards are not that high.
And who are you to comment on poor spelling or grammar anyway? "Agreed" is not a sentence on its own (it is a fragment), you should have said something along the lines of "I agree." See how ridiculous I sound for pointing out something so trivial?
I never said I thought our laws on internet gambling are just laws. And I wasnt referring to the actual laws of Cuba, it was a hypothetical situation I was referring to. I could just as easily used "Country X", I just used a country that is close to the US and hostile.
None of that makes the analogy wrong. It was late at night when I posted, so I probably should have picked a better analogy but didnt.
How about some dictator of a country (Country X) killing hundreds of thousands of his own citizens, as well as any foreign citizens stupid enough to enter his country. By his laws it is completely lawful for him to do so. Lets just say there are 23 other countries (Countries A - W) in the world that have similar laws allowing dictators to kill whoever they want to in their own country.
If the dictator of Country X decided to travel to San Deigo for vacation, I would like to believe that the United States has every right to arrest him for crimes against humanity even if that isnt against the law in his country. He didnt even break the law in our country, but I still dont think it is wrong to detain him. Even if there are a large number of other countries that agree with his laws, I still dont think it is wrong to arrest this man.
--
I think it's absurd that someone can be charged for something they did that was legal when and where they did it.
So if a citizen of Cuba was running a crime cartel that is killing thousands of Americans, and then that person decided to fly to America, you think that the US would have no right to arrest him? What if the Cuban government doesnt consider his acts illegal because of their stance on our country?
BTW, I think that this country's laws regarding online gambling are rediculous. Almost as rediculous as your argument.
The US is actually doing *exactly* that in Iraq: Do things our "democratic" way or we'll stay here and keep killing people. You'd see this if you'd actually look at things happening from a distance. The current not-yet-civil war is a direct result of the US removing the one authority figure in charge, and trying to democratize the country. I personally believe that Iraq isn't A> ready B> helped with democracy.
You are comparing deposing a dictator who has killed hundreds of thousands of his own people with invading Tibet? You are comparing helping a country hold formal elections with forcing a country to assimilate into another? That is simply rediculous.
No one ever forces another country's citizens to choose a Democracy. Every human being likes to think he has some control over his life, so Democracy is the default government that any group of citizens would choose. But things like fear of death from death squads can make people decide that the freedom of a democracy is not worth it. It takes a large country with a large military and a conscience (and a need for oil) to help them.
The only problem with Democracy is that it doesnt work when you have people in power who are against the democratic process. This is why it is very hard to get a democracy to work, because there are always going to be people with power who do not want to share that power with the common people. Even in the US we have our corporations who strip power from regular citizens.
All the US is trying to do is to help the average Iraqi citizen gain control of their country. That takes stoping violent men. Violent men who are willing to kill anyone just to stop the people of Iraq from gaining control of their government. In war innocent people die right along violent men, but at least they are dying for a good cause. Hundreds of thousands of innocent people die every year for various reasons from crime to car crashes, but at the least the citizens of Iraq are dying to create themselves a free nation.
You may not agree that the Iraqis want or deserve to run their own country, but to compare the Iraq war to the invasion of Tibet is just ludicrous.
--
Other animals don't make war.
Wow, so all humans have to do is lower our intelligence to that of dogs and all wars would stop? I actually agree with you on that, but I dont think it is going to happen any time soon.
I do not believe that massive power structures are inherent to human nature, as there are many societies which avoid them.
You are correct, not all human societies build these power structures seen in the civilized world. There have been plenty of societies that have been more tribal, nomadic, etc. But the problem is that those societies eventually get wiped out by societies that can make war. There are probably some societies like these left in the world today, but only because it is not worth wiping them out yet. Remember that the only reason pacifists can survive is if non-pacifists are there to protect them.
For world peace to work, ALL societies in the world have to decide to create small governments without territorial borders. It only takes ONE society on the ENTIRE planet to through off the balance again and start wars. Either they take over the world, or other groups band together to stop them (thus creating another massive power structure).
So I guess it is wrong to say that war is inevitable. It would be better to say that while humans are still smarter than your average dog, war is inevitable.