Has there been any research studying the effects of playing with Legos on mental development in children? It seems intuitive to me and probably others here that there is some positive correlation if not outright causality between these types of toys and intelligence.
Your response is similar to, but more in-depth than the first response, yet still avoids my question. I agree the Bible is a collection of works, some obviously meant to be artistic and others fact, but that does not tell us how know which are history and which are poetry. What defines the marker that separates the myth part of Genesis with the historical account of the Jews? By what standards do we use? Do we go by intuition? Or do we mark sections as allegorical based on their evident absurdity?
If it is the former, than we are in the same quandry as before: the Bible ultimately means nothing because it is up to you and I to determine which parts we should take seriously and which we should laugh at. (This has another implication in that it shows morality does not come from scripture, but I digress.) The second reply to my original post delves into why this is silly and foolish quite well.
Now, if it is the latter, then it is only a matter of time before the entire Bible is used as a work of enterainment or curiosity, just as the Egyptian Book of the Dead or the Upanishads or any other ancient religious work. People used to believe the earth was 10,000 years old, created in seven days. We now know this to be false. People used to believe you could fit two of every species onto a single boat. That is also beyond being taken seriously. The Bible tells us the bat is a type of bird. The list of verifiably untrue statements in the Bible goes on and it is only a matter of time before sciences of geology, astronomy, physics, and even ethics show that none of it is meant to be taken literally.
Two marginal remarks cover cases like Abraham and Isaac, and Revelations. In the cases of near sacrificing your son or daughter to your god, it does not matter if the story is meant to be taken literally or not. Such stories are hideous and are best rejected outright. Then for the matter of Revelations, one can only imagine what mind altering substances the authors were using to concoct dragons with 7 heads and 10 horns and the idea that Jesus will bring death by a sword coming out of his mouth. I suppose it is clear we are not meant to take this part literally?
The Bible was not meant to be a science textbook, and it was never meant to be read literally. A simple reading of the early church fathers (2nd century or perhaps a little later) would reveal this fact.
I would like to understand why exactly this is. Does the Bible say that it should not be taken literally? Should the whole thing not be taken literally or just parts of it? If the latter, how do you know what parts? And if we are not supposed to take it literally, what are the contents actually supposed to mean (given that interpretation of nor literal material is highly subjective)?
Forgive me for flying off the handle right away, but it seems to me this is just a technique believers use to shield themselve from inquiry when it is clear that their beliefs are downright outlandish (and they know it). If the Bible is not meant to be taken literally then honestly what could it possibly be good for? (Aside from the reasons we read The Odyssey or similar classics.) You cannot be sure of anything in such a text as it is intended for the audience to make their own decisions. It is like basing beliefs on interpretations of Fight Club or Rocking-Horse Winner. Those stories could mean anything and specifically do not present absolutes, drawing on the reader to make sense of them.
The argument holds perfectly true. [T]hat same demographics page shows that 75% of the US population is 'White' (which also includes non-euro originating caucasians but in general is a euro originating group) and political leadership is going to reflect that when you look at all the numbers.
You missed the point. Your original comment suggested that a politician must be Christian because 88% of population is Christian. (“...[T]ell me again why being Christian shouldn't be a pre-requisite...”) Are you trying to say that black people should not be allowed to hold office because 75% of the population is white?
The various churches do not hold any particularly powerful sway in goverment, else you'd see an entirely different government.
Surely you are joking.
We have (attempted) abortion bans, the FDA blocking over-the-counter distribution of Plan B, bans on homosexual marriage, an unbalanced policy on Israel, and both tax breaks for and government hand-outs to churches.
And the present Administration strongly professes religion. Bush (used to) conference with Ted Haggard weekly and says he asks God for guidance when making decisions.
so it's not a theocracy but the fact that the majority of the leadership of a country has similar beliefs as the populace shows no correlation with theocracy either.... you are just rambling and trying to show some connection because you feel disenfrachised by the fact that your personal beliefs are not represented to your satisfaction. Understandable but you'll just have to get used to it... as long as your personal beliefs are a minority view in the general populace.
I am the first to state, in this discussion, this country is not a theocracy.
And I honestly have no idea how you draw these conclusions. Black people, as you point out, are the minority and yet black people are often elected in spite of a majoriy of white voters. Meanwhile, going back to the original comment, atheists are immediately disqualified and therein lies the dissonance. One minority remains eligable for public office but the other does not.
stop whining.
Stop equating calls for fairness with whining.
Religion has nothing to do with whether a person's decisions are grounded in reality or not.
It most certainly does. If our President started telling us that he asks The Flying Spaghetti for guidance in morning prayer, we would rightly think he was insane. Or if not FSM, Zeus or Thor or Baal. Why does belief in a relatively modern deity somehow deserve respect where belief in Ra or the Tooth Fairy does not?
Saddam Hussein was a public Aetheist and no one could say that his decisions were grounded in reality, at least not our version of it.
I never made that assertion. Quit putting “words in my mouth” (this is twice now). Even atheists can be stupid (and I will gladly line up the crack-pots in my camp), but theism is a clear indicator that the person is rejecting reality to some degree. Not a condition I want in people who have the power to start wars.
So tell me again why being Christian shouldn't be a pre-requisite to being the top political and commander in chief of this nation? 88% is a pretty convincing argument IMHO.
We are not a theocracy. Religion has no place in our government. Otherwise, your logic is terribly flawed and the “argument” is not at all convincing. First, the majority is not always right. Democracy is, at times, two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat. We have courts and secular laws to address this in particular. Second, consider a population that was 88% white or illiterate and see if your reasoning holds true.
Now to ramble off into opinion for a moment. Are you really that comfortable giving control to a group of people who yearn for the world to end in nuclear fire just so Jesus can come back? Do you like the idea that our President openly admits that God told him to invade Iraq? It bothers me a great deal that we demand our politicians to profess a delusion centered on an invisible man in the clouds while wielding tremendous power and authority. We should require that those who make decisions affecting our nation and the entire world should at least express some reason that is grounded in reality.
How is it not obvious to, well, everyone that this is a bunch of nonsense? Why is open source software more likely to contain stolen code than any product from Microsoft or Oracle or any other proprietary vendor? (It is not, of course, because it is easy to find.) Like most matters of “intellectual property” the reasoning is totally inverted. We should have indemification licenses for closed source software, not open.
Sam Harris puts it well in The End of Faith when he points out that the only thing you must be to get elected in the United States is religious. You need no education in political science, economics, resource management, social studies, or any other field that is typically involved in serving as President or most public offices. Instead, you must profess a belief in Christianity. Failing to do this and you stand no chance of becoming elected no matter how well informed or qualified you are otherwise. Now, while a cut-throat business man who heads (or headed) a criminal organization is the last person I would choose for the job, I do agree that it would be nice if we eliminated faith as the basis for electing leaders.
They are still widely in use, but if you are up-to-date in Java web application technologies, you are probably aware that JSP is dead. This is not a troll. JSP is rapidly being pushed out by alternatives like Facelets (which is used to define JavaServer Faces views), Tapestry, and Wicket. All of these are XML, disallow any logic in the view (thus encouraging proper MVC), and do not require a mountain of boilerplate code to extend. Why anyone would use JSP these days is totally beyond my understanding. Confusing and hard to maintain, JSP is rapidly diminishing and releasing a new library targeting it is like announcing some great new technology for Windows 95.
When I started reading “VisiCalc is one of the applications Microsoft uses as a baseline”, I immediately thought “well, that explains a lot.” You can imagine my let-down as I kept reading.
I caused quite an uproar with a post to The DailyWTF where I proposed that dates like “September 31, 2005” could be considered the same as “October 1, 2005”. The responses are varied and some of them insightful. Worth a read if this stuff interests you.
I think Saddam deserves to be punished as much as the next guy. He is categorically evil and I find myself unable to deny him the death penalty. But this is so convenient for the United States. He has a great deal to tell the world about how we supported the rise of his regime. How we tried to play Iran and Iraq against each other by supplying both with weapons. Eliminating Saddam makes us that less likely to see accountability for our past transgressions.
Now that Saddam has had his trial, it is about time to put Donald Rumsfeld (and other now prominent neo-conservatives) on trial for providing material support to a man we knew to be a brutal dictator.
I made no mention of who Arabs are or are not off killing. What I was alluding to was the fact that the US has invaded Iraq, one of our allies has invaded Lebanon, and we are currently threatening military action against Iran. In addition to that, some reputable sources seem to think these are but three countries on a laundry list of targets. If you were the government of a country in the Middle East, you would feel threatened. When governments feel threatened, they build weapons in response.
We are Israel. It is no secret that, in addition to direct involvement in Middle East conflicts, we provide rich funding the Israeli military. To the average Arab that either fears or is hell-bent on destroying the west, the two forces are indistinguishable.
Slashdot Mirror
I am otherwise obligated at the moment, but this was refreshing to read and I should hopefully get around to making another reply soon.
It has been pointed out that “Legos” is incorrect. My apologies.
Has there been any research studying the effects of playing with Legos on mental development in children? It seems intuitive to me and probably others here that there is some positive correlation if not outright causality between these types of toys and intelligence.
Your response is similar to, but more in-depth than the first response, yet still avoids my question. I agree the Bible is a collection of works, some obviously meant to be artistic and others fact, but that does not tell us how know which are history and which are poetry. What defines the marker that separates the myth part of Genesis with the historical account of the Jews? By what standards do we use? Do we go by intuition? Or do we mark sections as allegorical based on their evident absurdity?
If it is the former, than we are in the same quandry as before: the Bible ultimately means nothing because it is up to you and I to determine which parts we should take seriously and which we should laugh at. (This has another implication in that it shows morality does not come from scripture, but I digress.) The second reply to my original post delves into why this is silly and foolish quite well.
Now, if it is the latter, then it is only a matter of time before the entire Bible is used as a work of enterainment or curiosity, just as the Egyptian Book of the Dead or the Upanishads or any other ancient religious work. People used to believe the earth was 10,000 years old, created in seven days. We now know this to be false. People used to believe you could fit two of every species onto a single boat. That is also beyond being taken seriously. The Bible tells us the bat is a type of bird. The list of verifiably untrue statements in the Bible goes on and it is only a matter of time before sciences of geology, astronomy, physics, and even ethics show that none of it is meant to be taken literally.
Two marginal remarks cover cases like Abraham and Isaac, and Revelations. In the cases of near sacrificing your son or daughter to your god, it does not matter if the story is meant to be taken literally or not. Such stories are hideous and are best rejected outright. Then for the matter of Revelations, one can only imagine what mind altering substances the authors were using to concoct dragons with 7 heads and 10 horns and the idea that Jesus will bring death by a sword coming out of his mouth. I suppose it is clear we are not meant to take this part literally?
But then again, how do we know that?
I would like to understand why exactly this is. Does the Bible say that it should not be taken literally? Should the whole thing not be taken literally or just parts of it? If the latter, how do you know what parts? And if we are not supposed to take it literally, what are the contents actually supposed to mean (given that interpretation of nor literal material is highly subjective)?
Forgive me for flying off the handle right away, but it seems to me this is just a technique believers use to shield themselve from inquiry when it is clear that their beliefs are downright outlandish (and they know it). If the Bible is not meant to be taken literally then honestly what could it possibly be good for? (Aside from the reasons we read The Odyssey or similar classics.) You cannot be sure of anything in such a text as it is intended for the audience to make their own decisions. It is like basing beliefs on interpretations of Fight Club or Rocking-Horse Winner. Those stories could mean anything and specifically do not present absolutes, drawing on the reader to make sense of them.
You missed the point. Your original comment suggested that a politician must be Christian because 88% of population is Christian. (“...[T]ell me again why being Christian shouldn't be a pre-requisite...”) Are you trying to say that black people should not be allowed to hold office because 75% of the population is white?
Surely you are joking.
We have (attempted) abortion bans, the FDA blocking over-the-counter distribution of Plan B, bans on homosexual marriage, an unbalanced policy on Israel, and both tax breaks for and government hand-outs to churches.
And the present Administration strongly professes religion. Bush (used to) conference with Ted Haggard weekly and says he asks God for guidance when making decisions.
I am the first to state, in this discussion, this country is not a theocracy.
And I honestly have no idea how you draw these conclusions. Black people, as you point out, are the minority and yet black people are often elected in spite of a majoriy of white voters. Meanwhile, going back to the original comment, atheists are immediately disqualified and therein lies the dissonance. One minority remains eligable for public office but the other does not.
Stop equating calls for fairness with whining.
It most certainly does. If our President started telling us that he asks The Flying Spaghetti for guidance in morning prayer, we would rightly think he was insane. Or if not FSM, Zeus or Thor or Baal. Why does belief in a relatively modern deity somehow deserve respect where belief in Ra or the Tooth Fairy does not?
I never made that assertion. Quit putting “words in my mouth” (this is twice now). Even atheists can be stupid (and I will gladly line up the crack-pots in my camp), but theism is a clear indicator that the person is rejecting reality to some degree. Not a condition I want in people who have the power to start wars.
Silly site and its broken hostname redirection. The correct address is http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/living/152215 78.htm.
I think there are some. A cursory search turns up the following.
If I had my copy of The God Delusion handy, I could cite the same sources as Dawkins.
We are not a theocracy. Religion has no place in our government. Otherwise, your logic is terribly flawed and the “argument” is not at all convincing. First, the majority is not always right. Democracy is, at times, two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat. We have courts and secular laws to address this in particular. Second, consider a population that was 88% white or illiterate and see if your reasoning holds true.
Now to ramble off into opinion for a moment. Are you really that comfortable giving control to a group of people who yearn for the world to end in nuclear fire just so Jesus can come back? Do you like the idea that our President openly admits that God told him to invade Iraq? It bothers me a great deal that we demand our politicians to profess a delusion centered on an invisible man in the clouds while wielding tremendous power and authority. We should require that those who make decisions affecting our nation and the entire world should at least express some reason that is grounded in reality.
How is it not obvious to, well, everyone that this is a bunch of nonsense? Why is open source software more likely to contain stolen code than any product from Microsoft or Oracle or any other proprietary vendor? (It is not, of course, because it is easy to find.) Like most matters of “intellectual property” the reasoning is totally inverted. We should have indemification licenses for closed source software, not open.
Sam Harris puts it well in The End of Faith when he points out that the only thing you must be to get elected in the United States is religious. You need no education in political science, economics, resource management, social studies, or any other field that is typically involved in serving as President or most public offices. Instead, you must profess a belief in Christianity. Failing to do this and you stand no chance of becoming elected no matter how well informed or qualified you are otherwise. Now, while a cut-throat business man who heads (or headed) a criminal organization is the last person I would choose for the job, I do agree that it would be nice if we eliminated faith as the basis for electing leaders.
Accepting any deal of the sort from Microsoft is tantamount to giving legitimacy to a corrupt system and buying into blackmail.
It just never seems to get old.
They are still widely in use, but if you are up-to-date in Java web application technologies, you are probably aware that JSP is dead. This is not a troll. JSP is rapidly being pushed out by alternatives like Facelets (which is used to define JavaServer Faces views), Tapestry, and Wicket. All of these are XML, disallow any logic in the view (thus encouraging proper MVC), and do not require a mountain of boilerplate code to extend. Why anyone would use JSP these days is totally beyond my understanding. Confusing and hard to maintain, JSP is rapidly diminishing and releasing a new library targeting it is like announcing some great new technology for Windows 95.
I hate corporate America.
When I started reading “VisiCalc is one of the applications Microsoft uses as a baseline”, I immediately thought “well, that explains a lot.” You can imagine my let-down as I kept reading.
Do not look directly into laser with remaining eye!
I caused quite an uproar with a post to The DailyWTF where I proposed that dates like “September 31, 2005” could be considered the same as “October 1, 2005”. The responses are varied and some of them insightful. Worth a read if this stuff interests you.
“Causing Traffic Jams With Cell Phones”
Once someone has an accident you can all report the incident and resulting congestion right away!
I think Saddam deserves to be punished as much as the next guy. He is categorically evil and I find myself unable to deny him the death penalty. But this is so convenient for the United States. He has a great deal to tell the world about how we supported the rise of his regime. How we tried to play Iran and Iraq against each other by supplying both with weapons. Eliminating Saddam makes us that less likely to see accountability for our past transgressions.
Now that Saddam has had his trial, it is about time to put Donald Rumsfeld (and other now prominent neo-conservatives) on trial for providing material support to a man we knew to be a brutal dictator.
Fishing for herring much these days?
I made no mention of who Arabs are or are not off killing. What I was alluding to was the fact that the US has invaded Iraq, one of our allies has invaded Lebanon, and we are currently threatening military action against Iran. In addition to that, some reputable sources seem to think these are but three countries on a laundry list of targets. If you were the government of a country in the Middle East, you would feel threatened. When governments feel threatened, they build weapons in response.
We are Israel. It is no secret that, in addition to direct involvement in Middle East conflicts, we provide rich funding the Israeli military. To the average Arab that either fears or is hell-bent on destroying the west, the two forces are indistinguishable.
Perhaps in response to unbridled United States aggression in the region.
It looks like Link got himself a weird sort of Light Cycle!
Read the article for a good reason why their support will have no essential benefit over RedHat support.