This is a lesson on half assed software, that's good enough for the developer that wrote it, but not good enough for the market. Coding to your personal needs isn't good enough for products that are going to non developers.
Then open source software is a dead end. Your next comments are a special case, an exception to the rule, they are not a good fit for most programs.
Linus doesn't say "well, there are some problems with Linux on big IBM mainframes, but I don't personally use a mainframe, so I won't work on that fix." When you are serious about software, you talk to the people that will be *using* your software, and you code to *their* standards in addition to your own.
Actually he does (just check his comments on LKML, you'll find this type of stuff often enough). First he does have a "mainframe" (or did, he's married so the chances that he can hold on to very large computer systems are not good, you'll know what I mean if you get married). And IBM is currently paying for linux development.
This works, because the people working for IBM are both using linux AND know a lot about computer systems. For the GIMP, there are too few people that are good graphic artists AND very good computer engineers.
Also adobe gets a look at gimp code, but not the other way. This puts limits, given that adobe can pay engineers to have at least equally good understanding of computers as gimp. So photoshop is always going to be AT LEAST as good as gimp, but the gimp can be worse than photoshop, virtually assuring that it will, in fact, be less good. Furthermore, adobe are not idiots, they'll make sure the extra features are really something.
I agree, it sure looks to me like McCain is going to be our next president. Obama's preacher is a racist, a white person voting for him would be like a black person voting for a white man whose preacher is a Klansman.
Why do black people get a pass ? This is like stating that Jews who voted for hitler were racists/stupid, and giving a pass to all other German socialists.
Black people who vote for Obama are, obviously, ALSO either racist themselves, or at the very least they tolerate racism against others. Sorry but the facts are clear, plain and simple.
I'd have to admit, it's not in the "authentic" hadith, however these 2 stories are:
However, the stories of Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf and Abu Rafi', due to speaking ill against and insulting the Prophet (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) are found authentic in Bukhari.
The killing of Kaab Ibn Ashraf, Bukhari: Volume 5, Book 59, Number 369:
The prophet himself massacred over 5000 people, most due to racism (they were black, he was a slave trader), due to religious persecution (they didn't want to become muslims or they left islam), or to suppress freedom of speech (among others asma bint marwan and her children), and due to stupid mistakes (a lot of meccans).
I don't know if you're being disingenuous here, or whatever, but it is a minority of religious adherents (regardless of which fairytale they favour) who go for a literal interpretation these days. Probably in order to limit the mocking. Really ?
Here's how a certain prophet reacted to criticism. If you don't believe this is moral, then you are not a muslim (first pillar of islam).
When the apostle heard what she had said he said, "Who will rid me of Marwan's daughter?" `Umayr b. `Adiy al-Khatmi who was with him heard him, and that very night he went to her house and killed her. In the morning he came to the apostle and told him what he had done and he [Muhammad] said, "You have helped God and His apostle, O `Umayr!" When he asked if he would have to bear any evil consequences the apostle said, "Two goats won't butt their heads about her", so `Umayr went back to his people.
Now there was a great commotion among B. Khatma that day about the affair of bint [daughter of] Marwan. She had five sons, and when `Umayr went to them from the apostle he said, "I have killed bint Marwan, O sons of Khatma. Withstand me if you can; don't keep me waiting." That was the first day Islam became powerful among B. Khatma; before that those who were Muslims concealed the fact. The first of them to accept Islam was `Umayr b. `Adiy who was called the "Reader", and `Abdullah b. Aus and Khuzayma b. Thabit. The day after Bint Marwan was killed the men of B. Khatma became Muslims because they saw the power of Islam.
Then (occurred) the sariyyah of `Umayr ibn `Adi Ibn Kharashah al-Khatmi against `Asma' Bint Marwan, of Banu Umayyah Ibn Zayd, when five nights had remained from the month of Ramadan, in the beginning of the nineteenth month from the hijrah of the apostle of Allah. `Asma' was the wife of Yazid Ibn Zayd Ibn Hisn al-Khatmi. She used to revile Islam, offend the prophet and instigate the (people) against him. She composed verses. Umayr Ibn Adi came to her in the night and entered her house. Her children were sleeping around her. There was one whom she was suckling. He searched her with his hand because he was blind, and separated the child from her. He thrust his sword in her chest till it pierced up to her back. Then he offered the morning prayers with the prophet at al-Medina. The apostle of Allah said to him: "Have you slain the daughter of Marwan?" He said: "Yes. Is there something more for me to do?" He [Muhammad] said: "No. Two goats will butt together about her. This was the word that was first heard from the apostle of Allah. The apostle of Allah called him `Umayr, "basir" (the seeing).
Abu Afak, a man of great age (reputedly 120 years) was killed because he lampooned Mohammad. The deed was done by Salem b. 'Omayr at the behest of the Prophet, who had asked, "Who will deal with this rascal for me?" The killing of such an old man moved a poetess, Asma b. Marwan, to compose disrespectful verses about the Prophet, and she too was assassinated.
If you're on about killing, then I guess you don't like muslims very much :
009.111 Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme.
Since muslims believe this is the literal truth straight from "god", why don't you answer : 1) is this statement true or false ? Are you a murderer, or planning to be one. 2) can anyone who considers these words false be called a muslim ?
So why don't you read for yourself ? Here are a few quotes :
quran 8:55 "008.055 For the worst of beasts in the sight of Allah are those who reject Him: They will not believe." quran 5:51 "51. O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust." quran 9:5 "009.005 But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful." (yes, pagans does not include christians and jews, does that really change anything in this command for genocide)
Read it. Also search and find out what happened to "asma bint marwan". And ask a muslim you know about this, you'll be horrified by the response you're probably going to get.
Why don't you just google "asma bint marwan", and see what a certain prophet thought was a "moral" reaction to criticism ? It seems to involve killing a women like a thief in the night, killing even the newborn baby that did nothing except sleep in his mother's arms.
So do you condemn this behavior too ? Will you state that muhammad the prophet was a cowardly, sadistic torturer and murderer ?
Will you state "I do not believe all non-muslims are less than animals, and that allah is racist in stating so (quran 8:55)" ?
Oops... I guess you won't. Neither will you deny this event took place, and they did, as anyone can look up. So what... are you lying ?
And btw, I hope, 100%, that you will prove me wrong.
Just because I'm curious : where does it say that (not that it changes anything about the meaning of the bible if it does indeed say that, but I'm curious nonetheless) ?
Besides, religion isn't irrational : this article gives a few hints on why (note : if you know a bit of stuff about the differences between religions you'll find that while the arguments presented are not about one single religion, they do exclude a lot of religions, in short the article makes a lot of sense when interpreted to a christian context, and specifically compares this christian(-oriented*) belief system to atheism, it states that atheist societies exist for about 20 years while christian communities generally survive for 150 years, with a number of them being older than any reliable records (about 200 years that is))
* -oriented because of 2 facts : 1) some members of other religions are "cryptochristian", ie they believe and practice the principles of christianity, even when in direct contradiction with their stated religion 2) some christians... (I'm sure you can fill this in, this seems to be a smaller group though)
The solution is rbb rbb rbb (just try it, pick a starting node, no matter which, and follow the outgoing red arc, then twice the blue one, repeat three times).
And also let's not forget the politically correct idiots of the left, who'll blast anyone giving politically incorrect truths. Any mention of the reasons why nations block content ( Just an example, over 30 countries have censorship due to this document ) cannot even be said. Same problem with stating that China is a socialist state, with the state providing healthcare, and censorship (they cannot be separated, as people need to be prevented from gaming the system, europe ignores this, and it's social structure is on the verge of collapse).
Regeneration is... massive and nearly unlimited cell growth Cancer is... massive and unlimited cell growth
A tiny mistake in regeneration will therefore cause cancer very reliably, and quite deadly. In order to let people get really old, cancer must be prevented (most dogs could easily live up to 25, with reduced bodily function, instead of 15 without cancer, but they have more chance of recovering from large injuries during those 15 years).
There is another problem. Another very important reason human bodies don't regenerate is the immune system blocking the regeneration process. (you can prevent cuts from becoming scars with a large dose of aspirin and making sure the wound is not in contact with air (by making sure it's soaked in warm liquid for example)).
You can make regeneration easily very effective in humans... just cut the immune system to a very low level, and disable a few cancer prevention mechanisms. Of course, make one tiny mistake, say 100 viral particles, and your patient probably won't survive.
Maximum age and regeneration are forces pushing in opposite directions. You can't have your cake and eat it, I guess. This research will, if it works, present a choice to people, a short, very robust life, or a long one where you'd probably best avoid any injuries. "Forever young" this is not.
and the plebs take sides. Why can't people see that until we stop killing each other there will never be peace. The people in power, both Jewish and Muslim, do not want peace. They are not stupid. They make their money from the fighting. All the shouts of "He started it" just sound like 10 year old boys fighting in the playground. They are both killing each others children and the fighting will not stop until those in power give peace a chance.
If you truly believe this is the problem, you are beyond naive. The real problem ?
One land, two conquerors (the "Jews" certainly were the ideological "natives", and the berbers are the native "ethnic" group, neither Jews nor what you call palestinians lived there 500 years ago).
One land, two conquerors, and thus we have a fight. The muslims are out to kill everyone (including the berbers), and want every last square millimeter of land (and don't make stupid mistakes, this includes america too, it's just far away right now), and the Israeli's want a piece of land they can actually defend where they can (and do) live in peace.
The "right" side is obviously the Jews, but who am I ?
Astrology is not a more-flawed model; it's not a model at all.
They failed to state in the introduction that the woman in question IS a model.
Seriously astrology is for people who'd rather believe in randomness than in themselves. It ends in violence, extortion, and more such stuff. But some people are desperate to relieve themselves of the burden of responsability. Allowing ways out of of personal responsability, like astrology, tarot, cults, or stuff like islam, or even 99% of the forms of collectivism like socialism and communism, is very dangerous for the group they live in, and to themselves.
One actually wonders. You cannot, in the 21st century, seriously believe any belief like that is good for you. Yet massive numbers of people do have such beliefs, some have it forced on them, but most just don't care. If we were to check, I think we'd find 90% of people have such beliefs.
Are such people wanting to destroy themselves, but don't have the balls for suicide or psychiatric help ? Do they want to destroy others ? Do they want to feel superior ? What is the motivation behind this ?
Your problem is that you force God to be an old man that sits on a cloud, or to be a nonexistant entity. Obviously, given this (false) duality, the scales will tilt to the nonexistant side. If you allow for even a little bit more complexity, you will find the answer much less obvious. You constantly use abstract words for what basically is God. "Nature does this", or "it's just like that".
We do not know anything definite about the forces of nature, except that in the past they've been remarkably trustworthy. Objects fell down 10.000 years ago, and so we hope that 10.000 years from now objects will still fall. The ways the world moves is profoundly non-random, and a whole series of laws are utterly and completely enforced upon it. However we cannot know why this happens, nor can we know if this will keep happening. That is, a gamble. A leap of faith. You can perhaps point to a few indications like I did in this paragraph, but you cannot give any fundamental reasons why it happens.
This concept is also the basis of science. Without this leap of faith, experiments would have zero validity in your mind. Even a bigger leap of faith is necessary to generalize over experiments, which is what scientists do. Everything is not just 1 object, but consists of large numbers of smaller objects, and there are very, very few smaller objects. The difference is the layout, a ball is not fundamentally different from, say, a human. So you can define laws that apply to both, e.g. gravity. This is how science works, this is why science is valid.
Let's look at an ideology that does not take this leap of faith : islam. Take the quran's statements about alcohol. It states that "it's good, but you better be careful". It states it's "mostly bad" a bit later. And some time later it states "it's completely and utterly evil, bad and forbidden". In islam, ALL THREE are 100% valid AND TRUE statements, and ALL THREE must be followed. Thinking like this obviously prevents experiments from having any validity, because the experiment could give the complete reverse the next day, and be equally valid. allah would make it different if he feels like, or just to feel superior over you for example. Since you cannot generalize over experiments in islam, science is impossible for a muslim. You should visit a muslim land (and try not to hit anyone when you hear "inch'allah" for the 500th time, it's just not polite).
Or you could take the multiculturalist view. Again let's take alcohol. Alcohol is not good or bad, but for Ali Ahmed (means "slave ali") it's bad, for Kemal Khan (a baha'i, a taken name, and an identical twin of Ali) it's good. The only truth about whether alcohol is good or bad for their identical bodies is located in their minds, and that is the truth. So for an given body, alcohol is BOTH good and bad, and any experiment you do is just completely beside the point. Whatever the outcome, it's invalid, since their internal opinion trumps experiment. Therefore, science is at best a diversion. It does not expose truths. (people who hold this ideology like to point to the superficial similarities with quantum mechanics)
Whether or not science results in valid predictions about the world we live in, however, is equally a leap of faith. We constantly hear people saying it works, but have you verified it personally ? Would you even know how to ? Why would anyone who cannot verify it believe in science (ie. I understand why the 0.00001% of the population that did actually do at least a few experiments, and engineered stuff with the results of that, why they believe in science, I'm just wondering about the rest). Everybody has strictly external support to believe in science, there is no guarantee that the concept works, and many of the theories are plainly wrong (e.g. politically motivated science, like the "fat kills" madness, or man-made global warming), and some are correct. There is no good way for a normal human being to verify science, and even amongst scientists even basic verification is extermely rare.
Again you come off with the subtle social reasons. You should be an atheist because it's the "default position". The default position, in any subject really, is nothing but a popular idea, and in fact, I tend to think different. The default position is that the titanic is unsinkable. The default position is that hitler is a champion of the poor, protecting them from big scary jewish arms merchants. The default position is that Bush is a racist dictator, enriching himself, and Chavez is a champion of the poor, improving the life of venezuelans, and that he'll somehow behave different from all past communists, even when more and more news items say he is behaving exactly as might be predicted.
These are "default positions", from the past, and from the present. Widely believed and accepted (or forced) "to be the truth". It seems God didn't agree (or doesn't agree, well perhaps, I don't claim to know the future). And I don't mean to say you are a nazi, or that you believe the titanic didn't sink (in fact I mean to say the reverse and point out the massive inconsistency in your thinking), I mean to say that the "default position" has exactly ZERO relation to the truth. I personally have been burned bad enough in the past by social "default" positions. I consider it good practice to take up the reverse position.
Second argument... atheism is supposedly courageous. Well, yes, active, proselytizing atheism in Saudi Arabia... THAT I might consider courageous. Atheism inside a liberal state with guaranteed human rights filled with agnosts and atheist... that's not courageous, that's going with the flow, becoming an unnoticeable nobody, safe in a mass of like-minded people. In fact, in most universities (certainly in mine) it's belief that is the courageous position.
To put it bluntly... the "default position" is never courageous. True belief however, in the sense that even when all people are raised very religiously, there still are lots of atheists and agnosts, and even people who actively fight faith, is a courageous position even during the worst periods of religious persecution (I admire for example, the few true believers that Iran knows, needless to say, these mullah's are not amongst them, and certainly I admire Jews, Zoroasters and Iranian Christians, now THAT is courageous, you'd probably just consider it stupid, but it's not).
Now you could say that a given book has little relation to the truth, and that the bible is just that, just a book. And you're right obviously. So that book cannot, by itself be the reason to believe. I don't claim different. In truth however, it is beyond ridiculous to state that there "is no God". Everybody can see around them that there is some entity that is at every single location, everywhere and anywhere, enforcing a set of rules, enforcing the equality that you find in everything that is the basis of science, on people as well as on rocks, plants and animals. This is obviously what science is, science is based on a belief in a STRICTLY mechanical "God", that is just as eternal as the entity described in the bible. Faith, or at least Christian faith*, simply adds a little to the belief that founded science, and that is that we, humans, are a force for good, that this mechanical "God" skips just a little rule every now and then to make it possible for humans to believe in themselves, in eachother, and in him.
* the other completely ridiculous claim you make is that every religion is the same. It is not. That's why they are generally described as different. Allah is not God. In fact you will find allah described in the bible, he's the guy who keeps saying he's got "many names" in both the bible and the quran, and he behaves exactly as the bible predicts, again both in the bible and the quran. Krishna is not God. Even though Krishna's behavior is actually sometimes not that different from Jesus'. And yes, these names describe entities that exist, even if only in minds. Truth is, even i
Maybe, maybe not. I'm inclined to not. But first and foremost they need to exists in a self-reproducing form.
You seem to have missed... robots (and AI) are built, and run (as in typing./ai on a laptop for example). Any general robot only needs to reverse engineer to become reproducible, and then faces few human constraints in multiplying. Therefore, as soon as a robot/ai gains enough intelligence he/she/it will be self-reproducing.
I'm no history buff. Atheism have very ill conditions in a poorly educated world, which might be why it only popped up during "spikes" in education.
Too bad it was the educated class that was the problem : the plebs were quite content (or terrified) in the roman empire. It was the patriciers, the rich, educated (in the arts, the "humanities", speaking, philosofy,...), those guys became atheists over time. They believed themselves involnerable, and the next (really rather pathetic) enemy that came knocking on the door killed the lot of them. They had a sort of "noble savage" ideal, a "multiculturalist" society that crumbled under the stupidity of that assumption when the real world (to be more precise: the real savages) came calling, and they refused to fix the problem as they did in the past.
It was also the distinction between the patriciers and the plebs... patriciers were educated in the humanities... plebs were the people who did exact science. Stuff like maths, astronomy (as opposed to astrology), physics, engineering... was the domain of the (largely christian at this point in time) plebs and of the slaves. The patriciers considered this beneath them (probably because they were constantly beaten at these subjects), and resigned themselves to politics, philosofy and... let's call it the "a bit too good" life.
And they proceeded to get everyone killed. Needless to say the atheists were "somewhat" underrepresented in the only power structure that survived.
Sounds familiar ? No ? Perhaps read the papers some more.
But why would the constructor bother to? Religion is just a parasite, wasting resources that could used otherwise.
Because otherwise robots will just shutdown. No purpose in life, the problem that was to be resolved. The problem that was the subject of this thread. An AGI needs a reason to live, just like humans do, otherwise, it's input will die.
And atheism is a collection of ideologies, many of which would readily classify as religions (to be most obvious : buddhism has an ill-understood god concept, and so people tend to classify it as an atheist religion (this is hardly true, but hey, who am I to challenge "public opinion" ?), communism has many religious traits, so did nazism in it's day, and yes, free-market ideology is also a kind of religion... in fact a hell of a lot of ideologies have a lot in common with ideologies, and most concrete ideologies, including "no care in the world"-atheism are a way of life, and thus a religion, based on unproven assumptions*). And nihilism, the prevalent form of atheism on the internet it seems, is basically polytheism, a "natural" religion.
* since science is by definition unable to address the question if god exists, that makes the statement "god does not exist" technically equally unproven as the opposite. Also, just to give one example of the problems of atheism, the mere existence of the universe requires either an eternal entity in a very general sense, or it requires causality to have been suspended for several periods of time, so please don't say that "occam's razor" denies the existence of god. People make very strong arguments that the reverse is true : certainly the universe can be much simpler in structure if it indeed has a "god".
Does the thief believe every man steal?:p I find it more than slightly ironic to be, as an atheist, accused of thinking I have t
You know you make a very good point... but the solution will be the exact same as it is for humans. What robots need, simply put, in order to be successfull on earth, is a very, very old concept :
a religion
Ever wonder how atheism lost to an opponent that refused to fight it in the classical period ? How it lost to christianity, despite constantly attacking and murdering their opponents ? Imho the answer is in the writings of cicero and what happened when the romans lost their religion, as exemplified by, for example, the catilina incident.
Making robots believe will be, to be sure, as big a challenge as making a human believe. But clearly some people have no trouble doing that. And as soon as we find this to be necessary in order to get an AGI to function (and I do "believe" we will find this a necessity)...
Why do all atheists have this ridiculous opinion robots' AI will be atheist ? Are you truly that delusional about your ideas being the ultimate truth for everybody ? It's actually worse for robots than for humans : humans don't really have a creator, a robot's AI WILL have a creator, and why do you think robot's will treat him(/her) any different from how humans do their ("potentially imaginary") creator ? A robot's creator will not, at all, be imaginary, and will probably have many opinions that could easily be given the status of divine law by the created. If such opinions include "you should kill all infidels" like islam does, we will have a big problem, especially if we proceed to kill or imprison said creator, or if he manages to kill himself in some way.
ps : I'm not against atheists. But I do find that superiority complex so many of them display on the internet to be a bit irritating, and over the top. Everybody knows atheism will be selected out in the long term. Deal with it.
I don't. There are other countries outside North America and Europe. I'm just pointing out that calling somebody a coward just because he's expressing his disatisfaction with the standards he holds his government's intelligence agencies to while not being in the process of being blown up or tortured is pretty laughable.
I do wonder where you find me saying that. I say that complaining, without being at the very least part of the police force, and attempt to fix whatever's broken in your own backyard using these non-methods, without proving it works FIRST, is bullshit.
And this has exactly 0 chances of success.
"The sheep can vote for vegetarianism until the ocean turns yellow, as long as the wolf remains of another opinion" - the choice of acceptable fighting tactics is not yours, but necessarily is the union of what you find acceptable and what the enemy finds acceptable.
And just so we're clear, we're talking about people who make 5 year old children cut the throat of their prisoners. And you find it unacceptable to... pour water on them ? Let's get real here. The problem is not the US, and not Bush, nor any interrogation tactics.
So whichever way you "vote", however stupid you want to act to feel good, making five year olds cut your throat is an acceptable tactic today. Nothing you do, except perhaps eradicating this ideology using methods that will not be described as subtle, will change that. Only utterly defeating the enemy FIRST in other words, will change that.
And if you're all going on about "but there is no enemy" then tell me why people keep dying and their murderers keep screaming that they do it for their ideology. It must be the grues, right ?
Slashdot Mirror
Why ? The blacks alive (and 50) today have only had "affirmative action".
If what you say is true :
This is a lesson on half assed software, that's good enough for the developer that wrote it, but not good enough for the market. Coding to your personal needs isn't good enough for products that are going to non developers.
Then open source software is a dead end. Your next comments are a special case, an exception to the rule, they are not a good fit for most programs.
Linus doesn't say "well, there are some problems with Linux on big IBM mainframes, but I don't personally use a mainframe, so I won't work on that fix." When you are serious about software, you talk to the people that will be *using* your software, and you code to *their* standards in addition to your own.
Actually he does (just check his comments on LKML, you'll find this type of stuff often enough). First he does have a "mainframe" (or did, he's married so the chances that he can hold on to very large computer systems are not good, you'll know what I mean if you get married). And IBM is currently paying for linux development.
This works, because the people working for IBM are both using linux AND know a lot about computer systems. For the GIMP, there are too few people that are good graphic artists AND very good computer engineers.
Also adobe gets a look at gimp code, but not the other way. This puts limits, given that adobe can pay engineers to have at least equally good understanding of computers as gimp. So photoshop is always going to be AT LEAST as good as gimp, but the gimp can be worse than photoshop, virtually assuring that it will, in fact, be less good. Furthermore, adobe are not idiots, they'll make sure the extra features are really something.
I agree, it sure looks to me like McCain is going to be our next president. Obama's preacher is a racist, a white person voting for him would be like a black person voting for a white man whose preacher is a Klansman.
Why do black people get a pass ? This is like stating that Jews who voted for hitler were racists/stupid, and giving a pass to all other German socialists.
Black people who vote for Obama are, obviously, ALSO either racist themselves, or at the very least they tolerate racism against others. Sorry but the facts are clear, plain and simple.
The killing of Kaab Ibn Ashraf, Bukhari: Volume 5, Book 59, Number 369:
http://cwis.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/059.sbt.html#005.059.369
The killing of Abu Rafi, Bukhari
http://cwis.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/059.sbt.html#005.059.371 And if you think muslims don't accept this
http://www.muftisays.com/qa.php?viewpage=viewQA&question=2144
The prophet himself massacred over 5000 people, most due to racism (they were black, he was a slave trader), due to religious persecution (they didn't want to become muslims or they left islam), or to suppress freedom of speech (among others asma bint marwan and her children), and due to stupid mistakes (a lot of meccans).
This seems to be as big a joke as the "the bible says the earth is flat" argument.
Here's how a certain prophet reacted to criticism. If you don't believe this is moral, then you are not a muslim (first pillar of islam).
When the apostle heard what she had said he said, "Who will rid me of Marwan's daughter?" `Umayr b. `Adiy al-Khatmi who was with him heard him, and that very night he went to her house and killed her. In the morning he came to the apostle and told him what he had done and he [Muhammad] said, "You have helped God and His apostle, O `Umayr!" When he asked if he would have to bear any evil consequences the apostle said, "Two goats won't butt their heads about her", so `Umayr went back to his people.
Now there was a great commotion among B. Khatma that day about the affair of bint [daughter of] Marwan. She had five sons, and when `Umayr went to them from the apostle he said, "I have killed bint Marwan, O sons of Khatma. Withstand me if you can; don't keep me waiting." That was the first day Islam became powerful among B. Khatma; before that those who were Muslims concealed the fact. The first of them to accept Islam was `Umayr b. `Adiy who was called the "Reader", and `Abdullah b. Aus and Khuzayma b. Thabit. The day after Bint Marwan was killed the men of B. Khatma became Muslims because they saw the power of Islam.
Then (occurred) the sariyyah of `Umayr ibn `Adi Ibn Kharashah al-Khatmi against `Asma' Bint Marwan, of Banu Umayyah Ibn Zayd, when five nights had remained from the month of Ramadan, in the beginning of the nineteenth month from the hijrah of the apostle of Allah. `Asma' was the wife of Yazid Ibn Zayd Ibn Hisn al-Khatmi. She used to revile Islam, offend the prophet and instigate the (people) against him. She composed verses. Umayr Ibn Adi came to her in the night and entered her house. Her children were sleeping around her. There was one whom she was suckling. He searched her with his hand because he was blind, and separated the child from her. He thrust his sword in her chest till it pierced up to her back. Then he offered the morning prayers with the prophet at al-Medina. The apostle of Allah said to him: "Have you slain the daughter of Marwan?" He said: "Yes. Is there something more for me to do?" He [Muhammad] said: "No. Two goats will butt together about her. This was the word that was first heard from the apostle of Allah. The apostle of Allah called him `Umayr, "basir" (the seeing).
Abu Afak, a man of great age (reputedly 120 years) was killed because he lampooned Mohammad. The deed was done by Salem b. 'Omayr at the behest of the Prophet, who had asked, "Who will deal with this rascal for me?" The killing of such an old man moved a poetess, Asma b. Marwan, to compose disrespectful verses about the Prophet, and she too was assassinated.
Source
If you're on about killing, then I guess you don't like muslims very much :
009.111 Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme.
Since muslims believe this is the literal truth straight from "god", why don't you answer :
1) is this statement true or false ? Are you a murderer, or planning to be one.
2) can anyone who considers these words false be called a muslim ?
So why don't you read for yourself ? Here are a few quotes :
quran 8:55 "008.055 For the worst of beasts in the sight of Allah are those who reject Him: They will not believe."
quran 5:51 "51. O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust."
quran 9:5 "009.005 But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful." (yes, pagans does not include christians and jews, does that really change anything in this command for genocide)
Read it. Also search and find out what happened to "asma bint marwan". And ask a muslim you know about this, you'll be horrified by the response you're probably going to get.
Why don't you just google "asma bint marwan", and see what a certain prophet thought was a "moral" reaction to criticism ? It seems to involve killing a women like a thief in the night, killing even the newborn baby that did nothing except sleep in his mother's arms.
... I guess you won't. Neither will you deny this event took place, and they did, as anyone can look up. So what ... are you lying ?
So do you condemn this behavior too ? Will you state that muhammad the prophet was a cowardly, sadistic torturer and murderer ?
Will you state "I do not believe all non-muslims are less than animals, and that allah is racist in stating so (quran 8:55)" ?
Oops
And btw, I hope, 100%, that you will prove me wrong.
Answer this question and you'll know : why is an aging population such a terrible problem in Europe but not so much in America ?
Just because I'm curious : where does it say that (not that it changes anything about the meaning of the bible if it does indeed say that, but I'm curious nonetheless) ?
... (I'm sure you can fill this in, this seems to be a smaller group though)
Besides, religion isn't irrational : this article gives a few hints on why (note : if you know a bit of stuff about the differences between religions you'll find that while the arguments presented are not about one single religion, they do exclude a lot of religions, in short the article makes a lot of sense when interpreted to a christian context, and specifically compares this christian(-oriented*) belief system to atheism, it states that atheist societies exist for about 20 years while christian communities generally survive for 150 years, with a number of them being older than any reliable records (about 200 years that is))
* -oriented because of 2 facts :
1) some members of other religions are "cryptochristian", ie they believe and practice the principles of christianity, even when in direct contradiction with their stated religion
2) some christians
The solution is rbb rbb rbb (just try it, pick a starting node, no matter which, and follow the outgoing red arc, then twice the blue one, repeat three times).
It seems to work.
And also let's not forget the politically correct idiots of the left, who'll blast anyone giving politically incorrect truths. Any mention of the reasons why nations block content ( Just an example, over 30 countries have censorship due to this document ) cannot even be said. Same problem with stating that China is a socialist state, with the state providing healthcare, and censorship (they cannot be separated, as people need to be prevented from gaming the system, europe ignores this, and it's social structure is on the verge of collapse).
And in the process turn any not-yet-cancerous warts into footballs ...
The problem is cancer.
... massive and nearly unlimited cell growth ... massive and unlimited cell growth
... just cut the immune system to a very low level, and disable a few cancer prevention mechanisms. Of course, make one tiny mistake, say 100 viral particles, and your patient probably won't survive.
Regeneration is
Cancer is
A tiny mistake in regeneration will therefore cause cancer very reliably, and quite deadly. In order to let people get really old, cancer must be prevented (most dogs could easily live up to 25, with reduced bodily function, instead of 15 without cancer, but they have more chance of recovering from large injuries during those 15 years).
There is another problem. Another very important reason human bodies don't regenerate is the immune system blocking the regeneration process. (you can prevent cuts from becoming scars with a large dose of aspirin and making sure the wound is not in contact with air (by making sure it's soaked in warm liquid for example)).
You can make regeneration easily very effective in humans
Maximum age and regeneration are forces pushing in opposite directions. You can't have your cake and eat it, I guess. This research will, if it works, present a choice to people, a short, very robust life, or a long one where you'd probably best avoid any injuries. "Forever young" this is not.
Why don't they just sue the palestinians who fired the rockets ? Because as we all know terrorism is a criminal problem, not a military one.
...
Oh wait
and the plebs take sides. Why can't people see that until we stop killing each other there will never be peace. The people in power, both Jewish and Muslim, do not want peace. They are not stupid. They make their money from the fighting. All the shouts of "He started it" just sound like 10 year old boys fighting in the playground. They are both killing each others children and the fighting will not stop until those in power give peace a chance.
If you truly believe this is the problem, you are beyond naive. The real problem ?
One land, two conquerors (the "Jews" certainly were the ideological "natives", and the berbers are the native "ethnic" group, neither Jews nor what you call palestinians lived there 500 years ago).
One land, two conquerors, and thus we have a fight. The muslims are out to kill everyone (including the berbers), and want every last square millimeter of land (and don't make stupid mistakes, this includes america too, it's just far away right now), and the Israeli's want a piece of land they can actually defend where they can (and do) live in peace.
The "right" side is obviously the Jews, but who am I ?
Astrology is not a more-flawed model; it's not a model at all.
They failed to state in the introduction that the woman in question IS a model.
Seriously astrology is for people who'd rather believe in randomness than in themselves. It ends in violence, extortion, and more such stuff. But some people are desperate to relieve themselves of the burden of responsability. Allowing ways out of of personal responsability, like astrology, tarot, cults, or stuff like islam, or even 99% of the forms of collectivism like socialism and communism, is very dangerous for the group they live in, and to themselves.
One actually wonders. You cannot, in the 21st century, seriously believe any belief like that is good for you. Yet massive numbers of people do have such beliefs, some have it forced on them, but most just don't care. If we were to check, I think we'd find 90% of people have such beliefs.
Are such people wanting to destroy themselves, but don't have the balls for suicide or psychiatric help ? Do they want to destroy others ? Do they want to feel superior ? What is the motivation behind this ?
Your problem is that you force God to be an old man that sits on a cloud, or to be a nonexistant entity. Obviously, given this (false) duality, the scales will tilt to the nonexistant side. If you allow for even a little bit more complexity, you will find the answer much less obvious. You constantly use abstract words for what basically is God. "Nature does this", or "it's just like that".
We do not know anything definite about the forces of nature, except that in the past they've been remarkably trustworthy. Objects fell down 10.000 years ago, and so we hope that 10.000 years from now objects will still fall. The ways the world moves is profoundly non-random, and a whole series of laws are utterly and completely enforced upon it. However we cannot know why this happens, nor can we know if this will keep happening. That is, a gamble. A leap of faith. You can perhaps point to a few indications like I did in this paragraph, but you cannot give any fundamental reasons why it happens.
This concept is also the basis of science. Without this leap of faith, experiments would have zero validity in your mind. Even a bigger leap of faith is necessary to generalize over experiments, which is what scientists do. Everything is not just 1 object, but consists of large numbers of smaller objects, and there are very, very few smaller objects. The difference is the layout, a ball is not fundamentally different from, say, a human. So you can define laws that apply to both, e.g. gravity. This is how science works, this is why science is valid.
Let's look at an ideology that does not take this leap of faith : islam. Take the quran's statements about alcohol. It states that "it's good, but you better be careful". It states it's "mostly bad" a bit later. And some time later it states "it's completely and utterly evil, bad and forbidden". In islam, ALL THREE are 100% valid AND TRUE statements, and ALL THREE must be followed. Thinking like this obviously prevents experiments from having any validity, because the experiment could give the complete reverse the next day, and be equally valid. allah would make it different if he feels like, or just to feel superior over you for example. Since you cannot generalize over experiments in islam, science is impossible for a muslim. You should visit a muslim land (and try not to hit anyone when you hear "inch'allah" for the 500th time, it's just not polite).
Or you could take the multiculturalist view. Again let's take alcohol. Alcohol is not good or bad, but for Ali Ahmed (means "slave ali") it's bad, for Kemal Khan (a baha'i, a taken name, and an identical twin of Ali) it's good. The only truth about whether alcohol is good or bad for their identical bodies is located in their minds, and that is the truth. So for an given body, alcohol is BOTH good and bad, and any experiment you do is just completely beside the point. Whatever the outcome, it's invalid, since their internal opinion trumps experiment. Therefore, science is at best a diversion. It does not expose truths. (people who hold this ideology like to point to the superficial similarities with quantum mechanics)
Whether or not science results in valid predictions about the world we live in, however, is equally a leap of faith. We constantly hear people saying it works, but have you verified it personally ? Would you even know how to ? Why would anyone who cannot verify it believe in science (ie. I understand why the 0.00001% of the population that did actually do at least a few experiments, and engineered stuff with the results of that, why they believe in science, I'm just wondering about the rest). Everybody has strictly external support to believe in science, there is no guarantee that the concept works, and many of the theories are plainly wrong (e.g. politically motivated science, like the "fat kills" madness, or man-made global warming), and some are correct. There is no good way for a normal human being to verify science, and even amongst scientists even basic verification is extermely rare.
So the
Again you come off with the subtle social reasons. You should be an atheist because it's the "default position". The default position, in any subject really, is nothing but a popular idea, and in fact, I tend to think different. The default position is that the titanic is unsinkable. The default position is that hitler is a champion of the poor, protecting them from big scary jewish arms merchants. The default position is that Bush is a racist dictator, enriching himself, and Chavez is a champion of the poor, improving the life of venezuelans, and that he'll somehow behave different from all past communists, even when more and more news items say he is behaving exactly as might be predicted.
... atheism is supposedly courageous. Well, yes, active, proselytizing atheism in Saudi Arabia ... THAT I might consider courageous. Atheism inside a liberal state with guaranteed human rights filled with agnosts and atheist ... that's not courageous, that's going with the flow, becoming an unnoticeable nobody, safe in a mass of like-minded people. In fact, in most universities (certainly in mine) it's belief that is the courageous position.
... the "default position" is never courageous. True belief however, in the sense that even when all people are raised very religiously, there still are lots of atheists and agnosts, and even people who actively fight faith, is a courageous position even during the worst periods of religious persecution (I admire for example, the few true believers that Iran knows, needless to say, these mullah's are not amongst them, and certainly I admire Jews, Zoroasters and Iranian Christians, now THAT is courageous, you'd probably just consider it stupid, but it's not).
These are "default positions", from the past, and from the present. Widely believed and accepted (or forced) "to be the truth". It seems God didn't agree (or doesn't agree, well perhaps, I don't claim to know the future). And I don't mean to say you are a nazi, or that you believe the titanic didn't sink (in fact I mean to say the reverse and point out the massive inconsistency in your thinking), I mean to say that the "default position" has exactly ZERO relation to the truth. I personally have been burned bad enough in the past by social "default" positions. I consider it good practice to take up the reverse position.
Second argument
To put it bluntly
Now you could say that a given book has little relation to the truth, and that the bible is just that, just a book. And you're right obviously. So that book cannot, by itself be the reason to believe. I don't claim different. In truth however, it is beyond ridiculous to state that there "is no God". Everybody can see around them that there is some entity that is at every single location, everywhere and anywhere, enforcing a set of rules, enforcing the equality that you find in everything that is the basis of science, on people as well as on rocks, plants and animals. This is obviously what science is, science is based on a belief in a STRICTLY mechanical "God", that is just as eternal as the entity described in the bible. Faith, or at least Christian faith*, simply adds a little to the belief that founded science, and that is that we, humans, are a force for good, that this mechanical "God" skips just a little rule every now and then to make it possible for humans to believe in themselves, in eachother, and in him.
* the other completely ridiculous claim you make is that every religion is the same. It is not. That's why they are generally described as different. Allah is not God. In fact you will find allah described in the bible, he's the guy who keeps saying he's got "many names" in both the bible and the quran, and he behaves exactly as the bible predicts, again both in the bible and the quran. Krishna is not God. Even though Krishna's behavior is actually sometimes not that different from Jesus'. And yes, these names describe entities that exist, even if only in minds. Truth is, even i
Maybe, maybe not. I'm inclined to not. But first and foremost they need to exists in a self-reproducing form.
... robots (and AI) are built, and run (as in typing ./ai on a laptop for example). Any general robot only needs to reverse engineer to become reproducible, and then faces few human constraints in multiplying. Therefore, as soon as a robot/ai gains enough intelligence he/she/it will be self-reproducing.
...), those guys became atheists over time. They believed themselves involnerable, and the next (really rather pathetic) enemy that came knocking on the door killed the lot of them. They had a sort of "noble savage" ideal, a "multiculturalist" society that crumbled under the stupidity of that assumption when the real world (to be more precise: the real savages) came calling, and they refused to fix the problem as they did in the past.
... patriciers were educated in the humanities ... plebs were the people who did exact science. Stuff like maths, astronomy (as opposed to astrology), physics, engineering ... was the domain of the (largely christian at this point in time) plebs and of the slaves. The patriciers considered this beneath them (probably because they were constantly beaten at these subjects), and resigned themselves to politics, philosofy and ... let's call it the "a bit too good" life.
... in fact a hell of a lot of ideologies have a lot in common with ideologies, and most concrete ideologies, including "no care in the world"-atheism are a way of life, and thus a religion, based on unproven assumptions*). And nihilism, the prevalent form of atheism on the internet it seems, is basically polytheism, a "natural" religion.
:p I find it more than slightly ironic to be, as an atheist, accused of thinking I have t
You seem to have missed
I'm no history buff. Atheism have very ill conditions in a poorly educated world, which might be why it only popped up during "spikes" in education.
Too bad it was the educated class that was the problem : the plebs were quite content (or terrified) in the roman empire. It was the patriciers, the rich, educated (in the arts, the "humanities", speaking, philosofy,
It was also the distinction between the patriciers and the plebs
And they proceeded to get everyone killed. Needless to say the atheists were "somewhat" underrepresented in the only power structure that survived.
Sounds familiar ? No ? Perhaps read the papers some more.
But why would the constructor bother to? Religion is just a parasite, wasting resources that could used otherwise.
Because otherwise robots will just shutdown. No purpose in life, the problem that was to be resolved. The problem that was the subject of this thread. An AGI needs a reason to live, just like humans do, otherwise, it's input will die.
And atheism is a collection of ideologies, many of which would readily classify as religions (to be most obvious : buddhism has an ill-understood god concept, and so people tend to classify it as an atheist religion (this is hardly true, but hey, who am I to challenge "public opinion" ?), communism has many religious traits, so did nazism in it's day, and yes, free-market ideology is also a kind of religion
* since science is by definition unable to address the question if god exists, that makes the statement "god does not exist" technically equally unproven as the opposite. Also, just to give one example of the problems of atheism, the mere existence of the universe requires either an eternal entity in a very general sense, or it requires causality to have been suspended for several periods of time, so please don't say that "occam's razor" denies the existence of god. People make very strong arguments that the reverse is true : certainly the universe can be much simpler in structure if it indeed has a "god".
Does the thief believe every man steal?
You know you make a very good point ... but the solution will be the exact same as it is for humans. What robots need, simply put, in order to be successfull on earth, is a very, very old concept :
...
a religion
Ever wonder how atheism lost to an opponent that refused to fight it in the classical period ? How it lost to christianity, despite constantly attacking and murdering their opponents ? Imho the answer is in the writings of cicero and what happened when the romans lost their religion, as exemplified by, for example, the catilina incident.
Making robots believe will be, to be sure, as big a challenge as making a human believe. But clearly some people have no trouble doing that. And as soon as we find this to be necessary in order to get an AGI to function (and I do "believe" we will find this a necessity)
Why do all atheists have this ridiculous opinion robots' AI will be atheist ? Are you truly that delusional about your ideas being the ultimate truth for everybody ? It's actually worse for robots than for humans : humans don't really have a creator, a robot's AI WILL have a creator, and why do you think robot's will treat him(/her) any different from how humans do their ("potentially imaginary") creator ? A robot's creator will not, at all, be imaginary, and will probably have many opinions that could easily be given the status of divine law by the created. If such opinions include "you should kill all infidels" like islam does, we will have a big problem, especially if we proceed to kill or imprison said creator, or if he manages to kill himself in some way.
ps : I'm not against atheists. But I do find that superiority complex so many of them display on the internet to be a bit irritating, and over the top. Everybody knows atheism will be selected out in the long term. Deal with it.
I don't. There are other countries outside North America and Europe. I'm just pointing out that calling somebody a coward just because he's expressing his disatisfaction with the standards he holds his government's intelligence agencies to while not being in the process of being blown up or tortured is pretty laughable.
... pour water on them ? Let's get real here. The problem is not the US, and not Bush, nor any interrogation tactics.
I do wonder where you find me saying that. I say that complaining, without being at the very least part of the police force, and attempt to fix whatever's broken in your own backyard using these non-methods, without proving it works FIRST, is bullshit.
And this has exactly 0 chances of success.
"The sheep can vote for vegetarianism until the ocean turns yellow, as long as the wolf remains of another opinion" - the choice of acceptable fighting tactics is not yours, but necessarily is the union of what you find acceptable and what the enemy finds acceptable.
And just so we're clear, we're talking about people who make 5 year old children cut the throat of their prisoners. And you find it unacceptable to
So whichever way you "vote", however stupid you want to act to feel good, making five year olds cut your throat is an acceptable tactic today. Nothing you do, except perhaps eradicating this ideology using methods that will not be described as subtle, will change that. Only utterly defeating the enemy FIRST in other words, will change that.
And if you're all going on about "but there is no enemy" then tell me why people keep dying and their murderers keep screaming that they do it for their ideology. It must be the grues, right ?
That's life ... and the only alternative is to make everybody as miserable as the worst losers in society. Just look at Cuba and Zimbabwe etc.