Thank you. Between this thread and the one where people are trying to argue that people in the middle ages didn't know the world was round, I've managed to score 2 more foes - I'm at 125. Just 541 more to go to get the magic number:-)
Makes me wonder about their school system - I thought everyone who ever sat through a high-school history class learned that Columbus was looking for an alternate route for the spice trade, and that it just stands to reason that he wouldn't have gotten any financial backing if they thought he was going to "sail over the edge" with their ships. I guess they get their "edumacation" from the Disney Channel.
Nothing of the sort, but just out of curiosity, how many cocks does a guy have to suck before they're considered at least bi? In our psych courses, we set the bar at 6. Nowadays, of course, we'd say "6, but 3 if you owned a mac."
Look, it's simple - religions should not be telling people who want nothing to do with their superstitions how to run their lives, and they certainly shouldn't be doing it by making claims that are lies, such as "only humans engage in same-sex activities - it's unnatural." This is easily disproven. Just get a bunch of white mice, and let them breed. As succeeding generations get more crowded for space, their behaviour changes, with more and more same-sex encounters. Or, instead of doing this yourself, you can read more about the effects of crowding in this pdf. (page 68)
Still other types of deviant behavior found in crowded rodent populations include
inappropriate sexual behavior, often misdirected in regard to sex and age,
and social withdrawal, in which some individuals avoid contact and fail to display
normal activity. Thus, Calhoun's study of wild Norway rat populations (1962a)
showed deviant sexual behavior by some individuals which he called "pansexuals."
Their sexual behavior was indiscriminate in regard to the sex and age of the other
individuals which they approached and mounted. He also observed the withdrawn
individual or "social dropout"--one who entered a state of inactivity and
depression and went into a spiral of deteriorating health.
Far from being "unnatural", they're hard-wired to channel at least some of their reproductive energy to non-reproductive ends when reproducing would threaten the survival of the colony. That's hardly "unnatural". So, if you believe in "god the creator", then you have to admit that "god made them that way."
"Come on, even the ancients knew that the tides were caused by the moon. Direct observation."
No, the didn't. They knew that there was a correlation between tides and moon phases but it was Newton the first one to give an explanation about it.
Sure they did. Ptolemy pointed out the relationship. You don't have to be able to explain a phenomena to say "x" causes "y". You don't have to be able to explain combustion to be able to say "where there's smoke, there's fire", or even to be able to use fire. Also, Newton didn't "explain" gravity - we're still working on an explanation for gravity, and its' transmission between bodies. All Newton did was describe the relationship between bodies in a useful way.
The ancient greeks certainly knew Aristotle. Now, forward on to the middle ages. The reason that Columbus was ready to sail around the world was not to "prove it was round" - everyone already knew that, which is why he was able to get financial backing. If they had thought the world was flat, nobody would have financed the voyage, or crewed the ship. They expected him to find a westward sea route to China, by going around the world the other way.
You've obviously not raised too many mammals as pets. Same-sex activity is quite common mammals. So is inter-species sexual activity with the same sex - which the following joke references:
Q: What do you do when a chihuahua humps your leg?
A: You kick it!
Q: What do you do when a pit bull humps your leg?
A: Pretend you're enjoying it, bitch!
Selling my engineering books is my biggest regret. I swore up and down I'd never need Thermodynamics. I'm a controls engineer...
Low and behold I'm controlling a thermodynamic system.
Wiki and other such sites are wonderful, but they're not presented in the medium that I learned them in with the coefficients and with the equations as I learned them.
Engineers, hold on to your text books. I know that $20 for beer looks good now but you'll want that book later much more than you want the beer now.
We burn heretics around here. That's the 4th law of thermdynamics.
And you would replace the fundie influence with a scientism that says humans are nothing but collections of atoms. That all religion is self-delusion and inarguably bad. That science is the only domain of knowledge.
Damn straight! All religion IS self-delusion; in that sense it is also inarguably bad. There is no "greater power", no "meaning to life" except that which we choose to make it. Anyone who claims otherwise has to show at least SOME proof that there is "more" - not just argue that there must be more, which is what you do when you claim that we are more than just a collection of atoms. Show some proof to that claim. As the saying goes, [citation needed].
When you get down to it, we're just an organization of atoms into molecules into cells into tissues into people; our conscience is a by-product of chemical reactions and electrical impulses, probably with effects at the quantum level. There's no need for more than that to explain everything we are, and everything we feel, how we came to be, and there is no hidden meaning to life and the universe, not even the number 42.
Some people feel the need for more. They look at that and say "is that all there is?" This leaves them cold. Religion gives them a purpose. It's a crutch; some people need a crutch, and for them, fine. However, they have no right to ask the rest of us to accomodate their false reality. For too long, we've done so, in the name of "religious tolerance", and we've seen it subvert national and foreign policy. We've seen it divert tax dollars to foolishness, such as battles against letting gays and lesbians have the same rights as others wrt marriage, because people want to impose their own religious standards of behaviour on others. Funny how, time and time again, these same people can't even live up to those same standards. It just helps demonstrate that much religion is, at best, unnatural and perverse/perverted.
But back to your original argument: there is no proof that we aren't just a collection of atoms. If you wish to believe that, without proof, that's your choice. You can also believe that the moon is made of green cheese. Believing either of them, absent any proof or at least a hypothesis based on facts that can ultimately be put to some sort of test, isn't really a strong position to argue from.
Nintendo already does most of this. Combination game console, picture sharing, voice communication with anyone in the world, surf the net, buy stuff from their online store, everything organized in "channels", a natural interface that supports gestures, and (until the last update, which removed mp3 support) you could play your own music for some titles. So - Wii combined game/media/internet console FTW.
That's exactly the problem... it just makes it seem that the way things are is actually acceptable. Let the people who are foolish enough to run Windows pay. It's their problem, not mine.
Since Vista is a cpu and energy hog, and anti-virus software just adds to the burden, we could do a lot more for reducing our carbon footprint if the government would instead put the money into pushing alternatives that potentially benefit everyone. Or let the market sort it out for a change. Microsoft just laid off another 3,000, and is now having to GIVE Windows 7 away for a year, just to keep the flow of users to their crack pipe flowing.
No, advertising is not bailing out. Giving massive, long-term, unqualified, low-interest loans is a bail-out. Troll.
How is spending public money reinforcing the idea that a worm-infested operating system is acceptable NOT a bail-out? AND a cop-out?
It would be using public funds to help perpetuate validity in the publics' perception of the Microsoft monopoly. It would also validate the idea that anti-virus software is worth the extra cpu cycles, rather than switching to a platform that isn't as vulnerable, doesn't need to run AV software, and is therefore more energy-efficient.
Vista is NOT green technology. Adding an anti-virus on top just makes it worse.
Maybe I think Apple and Twitter are a perfect fit because they both use exciting new technologies that have captured the imaginations of cutting-edge tastemakers. Both have growing user bases; both are hip.
Those who Twitter are usually quitters according to a company that measures internet traffic.
But research company Nielsen Online revealed that 60 per cent of users stop using the free website just a month after joining it.
'There simply aren't enough new users to make up for defecting ones after a certain point,' Nielsen's David Martin said.
Also, when you write:
I think you're being a little defensive
...
You have to relax, son, and stop thinking that everybody is making fun of you, and that any criticism of Apple is automatically some reference to your own perceived shortcomings.
I'm Apple-free. Always have been. I may buy one one day, but for now, linux does all I need.
Quite the contrary - what I'm saying is that, on further investigation, the bible turned out to be so much bullshit that it wasn't possible to defend it.
Have you even read it in its' entirety? (And I'm not saying "read 3 chapters a day and get through it in a year" - I mean - sit down and read it cover to cover in a week and see if, on the whole it makes sense).
No "head in the sand" approach here. I've still got my interlinear hebrew/english (OT) and greek/english (NT) texts, and no matter how you try to explain it away, it's still a fairy tale, not the truth.
There's a big difference between one guy knowing (or suspecting) the Earth is round and that being a general belief.
There's no evidence that everyone else thought the earth was flat. There IS evidence that people were taught, and knew, the earth was round. Aristotle didn't live in a vacuum, and it was the simplest explanation for ships passing out of view in the distance, with the mast being last. It was also the simplest explanation for why mountains also passed out of view, with their peaks being last. It wasn't that they were too far to see because of atmospheric haze (they could see more distant peaks that were higher), but because the earth was round.
Give it up already... the "people thought the earth was flat right up to the middle ages" is just ignorance.
I'm not claiming the big bang theory states anything at all, I'm asking, how does it or any other scientific theory give you any proof, beyond reasonable doubt, that first there was nothing, and then there was something (i.e. creation)?
Like I said - do your research. The Big Bang theory does NOT say that "first there was nothing, and then there was something". Whoever told you that was talking out their arse. This is the sort of argument from ignorance that religious apologists make all the time, and it's a good indicator of the total paucity of proof on their side.
So, once again, why should ANYONE believe a superstition that has absolutely no evidence to back it up? Why should anyone believe a bible that commands genocide and slavery of ones' enemies, rape of their women, the killing of your own child to prove you're obedient to god (sounds like a cult to me), mysgoeny, bashing the GLBTs, slaughtering children en masse, a god who so lacks a sense of proportion or self-confidence that he gets bears to rip apart kids who made fun of someone's bald head (even kids understand "sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me"), punishes the innocent to "teach his people a lesson", etc?
... and as for "devising tests", you're still assuming that human logic and testing is sufficient to understand a supreme being. If God exists (and I believe he does), then by definition he will be beyond our human understanding.
You don't have to understand something to be able to test for its' existence. People didn't understand how the sun gave off light and heat, but they could test as to whether the sun existed by simply looking. People didn't understand how fire worked to be able to harness it.
Also, you admit that your belief has zero proof. It's just a belief, with no evidence to back it up. Like I said, there's more proof that I am god (because it can be proven that I at least exist) than the god of the bible. That my position is beyond your understanding could be seen as more evidence:-)
It's worse -it's a disguised bail-out of Microsoft and anti-virus vendors.
It would help keep the idea alive that it's okay to sell virus-prone software. Why not use the same money to push for more development and higher adoption of linux or bsd?
Or create 2 internets - one for windows users, and one for people with a clue.
There are records of a rabble-rouser who was executed around that time who fits the description, and was executed. What's the problem with that? It doesn't prove that jesus was the son of god or any other crap, any more than Jim Jones and his cults' mass suicide proves that their beliefs were true, or the Solar Temple, or the Raliens, or whatever.
Or are you now going to argue that, because John Travolta and Tom Cruise exist, that scientology must be true?
Christianity is just the latest cultural abnormality in a long history. And no, I'm not from the US. A well-intentioned belief in the bible is ultimately not defensible - it eventually boils down to intellectual dishonesty, and that's a serious problem, at least from my point of view. When I have to make excuses, gloss over the bad stuff, etc., then it's time to say "this is a load of crap", whether it's the bible or work or anything else. The bible simply doesn't hold up under honest scrutiny. That its' purveyors don't either is only a secondary issue.
You know the saying - "You shall know the truth, and it shall set you free." Knowing that the god of the bible is not true is freedom indeed. I like it. Not because I'm now "free to do whatever I want", but because I no longer have to waste any time or energy trying to deal with the cognitive dissonance that results from having to believe something that is simply not credible.
Try it. You'll sleep better at night, you'll have a wider circle of friends, and you won't run the fisk of people thinking you're a self-righteous prig who wants to impose your moral standards on them.
You're asking for proof, beyond reasonable doubt, for the existence of God; Let's take a look at the big bang theory. Where did the first material, matter or whatever it's called, come from? How does the big bang theory explain the "there is absolutely nothing" to "now we have something" stage?
You misunderstand the big bang theory. It doesn't state what you claim it does. Please do at least a bit of research.
Also, I have not asked for "proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, for the existence of God" (the criminal standard of proof). I'm not even holding believers to the civil standard of proof - the "preponderance of the evidence." I've asked for ANY proof. None has been shown. Not one artifact, not one test, not one shred of evidence of the existence of any one of the thousands of gods that mankind has worshiped.
Saying "God does not exist because I can't find proof of his existance" is equivalent to sticking your head in the sand: "I can't see you, you don't exist."
Don't be silly. You can devise tests to prove or disprove my existence to the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. You haven't offered any proof of the existence of ANY god to ANY standard. Your case boils down to "I believe because I believe." Hardly compelling. There's more evidence that I am god than your biblical god - you can devise a test to see if I at least exist (even to the much higher standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt"), which gives me a leg up on your god, who you can't show, to even a subset of the "balance of the probabilities", exists.
Or you could admit that there is no proof whatsoever, and that "sin" is entirely in the eye of the beholder, and therefore, that believers have no inherent right to try to impose their morality on others, and that society has a right, for example, to pass laws allowing same-sex marriage.
After all, since you have no proof, the only difference between your religious beliefs and other superstitions is a tax deduction.
Non-disclosures are different from non-competes. If it's a trade secret, you just keep your mouth shut, period. And your next employer would WANT you to keep your mouth shut and not tell them any trade secrets - they can't afford the legal exposure and concomitant financial consequences
Ditto with customer lists, strategy, etc. Never disclose until it becomes public knowledge in another way. It's just not worth the hassle for everybody.
LETTING you work for the competition could very well be the most profitable decision they make...
However, if that was their plan, that you would work for the competition and purposefully divulge secrets so that the competition could be sued, it won't work, since they have voluntarily and intentionally leaked the "secrets."
Can you point me to your proof that the universe's physical laws are consistent everywhere in time and space?
...
Is it based on an evidence chain that starts with assuming uniformitarian principle as truth? No.
I have NEVER said that the universe's physical laws are the same everywhere in time and space. Why would I assume that - I haven't been everywhere in time and space - at least not yet. That doesn't mean shit in relation to whether there is a god or not. If they are ultimately proven to vary depending on location and time, so what? That's not any sort of "proof" that a "god" exists.
But that doesn't make you right. It doesn't give you the right to bully pulpit your ideas on me.
Aw, since you can't give ANY proof for the existence of your fairy-tale god, you now resort to whining. Look, it's very simple. If everything requires a creator, then who created god? You can follow the logical chain and end up with an infinitude of creators. Or you can look at the alternative - that the universe does NOT require that infinitude of creators, or any creator - it just is. It's better than the assumption of an ultimate creator who "just is", because at least we have physical evidence of the existence of the universe. There's none for the existence of any of the thousands of gods that we humans have dreamed up.
There is no god, jesus was a self-deluded freak who, considering all the crap we've undergone "in his name", got what he deserved in the end, and religion is just superstition with a tax deduction.
So now we're using nature as our moral compass?... I guess that means I (if I were a father) could have sex with my 10 year old daughter, after all, the male cats in my back yard will try and mate with kittens, and they don't care that the kitten is one of their offspring. Oh, and I guess that means I can murder anybody walking onto my property; many animals in the wild are "protective" of their property, they kill just because they are being harassed (see some BBC documentaries about Lions for example)... The simple answer to that is, two males having sex, sex without marriage etc., is wrong because God says it's wrong, not because you may or may not find proof out in the wild.
All the things you mention are actually shit that goes on in the bible - people raping their sisters, having sex with their daughters, being ordered by god to kill their own children, commit genocide and enslavement, forcing the wives of their enemies to be their own, etc. So, how is "god" any better than nature?
"God" doesn't say all that shit is wrong. If you believe the bible, he actually ORDERED most of it! So I'm underwhelmed by any argument that a "god" who you can't even offer one piece of evidence even exists, says in some fairy-tale book that contains a lot of conduct that is universally condemned nowadays, saying something is "wrong".
You have no proof that either god exists, or that the bible is in any way authoritative. Until you can do both, what consenting adults do in their bedrooms is their own business. As for the "sex without marriage" supposedly being wrong - look at the purported adam and eve's descendants (or noah's) - how could they NOT be the most incestuous bunch of inbred hillbillies?
The bible is neither holy nor particularly moral. There is no proof ANY god exists. Jesus was a self-deluded nutbar, one of many. Too bad, so sad, but there is no evidence to support your claims. You have no right imposing your "belief" that people should be married before they can have sex; neither that people of the same sex can't have sex; nor, for that matter, that people of the same sex can't get married, same as anyone else.
You don't see the people who decide to raise families w/o getting married going around saying YOU can't get married. You don't see the people who are involved in same-sex relationships saying YOU can't have sex with the opposite sex. You don't see people in same-sex marriages saying YOU can't marry someone of the opposite sex. Show the same respect for their rights that they show you. Stop being a busy-body, a gossip, and a hypocrite. Take the mote out of your eye.
As a former fundie, I can tell you that there IS life after Jebus and the Holy Rollers. And it's better. MUCH better. So much better that it's too bad jesus isn't coming back - I'd like to spit in his eye for helping propagate all this ignorance in the name of a fictitious god. I'll just have to settle for the fact that justice was ultimately served when they nailed him to the cross.
I responded in a failed effort to stop the Slashdot groupthink from asserting itself,
Show ANY proof that there is a god. ANY god. We've had thousands of them throughout history, so it's not like there isn't enough subject material. Otherwise, you're guilty of religious group-think with no basis whatsoever in fact. Get the mote out of your eye first, hmmm?
Come on, just ONE shred of hard, testable evidence that god - any god - exists. Or admit that what you believe is only that - a shared belief with no basis in fact. You know, group-think.
You claim:
Knowledge is only useful as it is applied, meaning that there is a great deal more to existence than knowledge; namely, experience
Information can exist without being useful. This is a retread of the worn-out "utilitarian argument for god" - that there must be more to life, and therefore god must exist. Why? Life doesn't have to have any intrinsic meaning. Does the life of an ant, or a swine flu particle, have any intrinsic meaning that "proves" the existence of an ant god, or a swine flu god? Or that they have the same god you have?
God is a cruel joke that we, as humans, have played on each other for a looong time. There's more to existance then blindly following an imaginary god - there's doing what I want to do, without other people trying to impose their superstitions, devoid of any proof, on me. Fortunately, atheism is the fastest-growing "belief" - hopefully, one day, religion will be held in the same contempt as smoking - something you don't do in polite company, that you admit is an irrational urge, and that you really need to give up for your own good, so you can focus your energy on other things.
Really, god is just a bad habit, and people should just "butt out." And if they can't, they should at least "butt out" of other people's lives, trying to impose their amoral religious beliefs in a phony god, sin, and condemnation, on others. Either that, or expect more push-back from those who see it as rude, superstitious, and phony.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you. Between this thread and the one where people are trying to argue that people in the middle ages didn't know the world was round, I've managed to score 2 more foes - I'm at 125. Just 541 more to go to get the magic number :-)
Makes me wonder about their school system - I thought everyone who ever sat through a high-school history class learned that Columbus was looking for an alternate route for the spice trade, and that it just stands to reason that he wouldn't have gotten any financial backing if they thought he was going to "sail over the edge" with their ships. I guess they get their "edumacation" from the Disney Channel.
Nothing of the sort, but just out of curiosity, how many cocks does a guy have to suck before they're considered at least bi? In our psych courses, we set the bar at 6. Nowadays, of course, we'd say "6, but 3 if you owned a mac."
Look, it's simple - religions should not be telling people who want nothing to do with their superstitions how to run their lives, and they certainly shouldn't be doing it by making claims that are lies, such as "only humans engage in same-sex activities - it's unnatural." This is easily disproven. Just get a bunch of white mice, and let them breed. As succeeding generations get more crowded for space, their behaviour changes, with more and more same-sex encounters. Or, instead of doing this yourself, you can read more about the effects of crowding in this pdf. (page 68)
Still other types of deviant behavior found in crowded rodent populations include inappropriate sexual behavior, often misdirected in regard to sex and age, and social withdrawal, in which some individuals avoid contact and fail to display normal activity. Thus, Calhoun's study of wild Norway rat populations (1962a) showed deviant sexual behavior by some individuals which he called "pansexuals." Their sexual behavior was indiscriminate in regard to the sex and age of the other individuals which they approached and mounted. He also observed the withdrawn individual or "social dropout"--one who entered a state of inactivity and depression and went into a spiral of deteriorating health.
Far from being "unnatural", they're hard-wired to channel at least some of their reproductive energy to non-reproductive ends when reproducing would threaten the survival of the colony. That's hardly "unnatural". So, if you believe in "god the creator", then you have to admit that "god made them that way."
"Come on, even the ancients knew that the tides were caused by the moon. Direct observation."
No, the didn't. They knew that there was a correlation between tides and moon phases but it was Newton the first one to give an explanation about it.
Sure they did. Ptolemy pointed out the relationship. You don't have to be able to explain a phenomena to say "x" causes "y". You don't have to be able to explain combustion to be able to say "where there's smoke, there's fire", or even to be able to use fire. Also, Newton didn't "explain" gravity - we're still working on an explanation for gravity, and its' transmission between bodies. All Newton did was describe the relationship between bodies in a useful way.
Sheesh, give it up. They weren't as backward as you make them out to be. Here's a list of others before Columbus who also weren't afraid of falling off the edge of the earth or other such nonsense. And don't forget the Vikings, who were in North America centuries before Columbus.
and can't really be attributed to chance.
... sounds like you're hedging it a bit there.
Chance can explain a lot more than we give it credit for, because we don't have an intuitive grasp of how probabilities work.
You've obviously not raised too many mammals as pets. Same-sex activity is quite common mammals. So is inter-species sexual activity with the same sex - which the following joke references:
Q: What do you do when a chihuahua humps your leg?
A: You kick it!
Q: What do you do when a pit bull humps your leg?
A: Pretend you're enjoying it, bitch!
First thing to cross my mind when I read the headline was "holy crap, Borland's still around?"
Second thing that crossed my mind was "What, they haven't changed their name yet again in the last couple of years?"
I guess you can call this the "not with a bang, but a whimper ..." stage.
Selling my engineering books is my biggest regret. I swore up and down I'd never need Thermodynamics. I'm a controls engineer...
Low and behold I'm controlling a thermodynamic system.
Wiki and other such sites are wonderful, but they're not presented in the medium that I learned them in with the coefficients and with the equations as I learned them.
Engineers, hold on to your text books. I know that $20 for beer looks good now but you'll want that book later much more than you want the beer now.
We burn heretics around here. That's the 4th law of thermdynamics.
From your original post, in its' entirety:
And you would replace the fundie influence with a scientism that says humans are nothing but collections of atoms. That all religion is self-delusion and inarguably bad. That science is the only domain of knowledge.
Damn straight! All religion IS self-delusion; in that sense it is also inarguably bad. There is no "greater power", no "meaning to life" except that which we choose to make it. Anyone who claims otherwise has to show at least SOME proof that there is "more" - not just argue that there must be more, which is what you do when you claim that we are more than just a collection of atoms. Show some proof to that claim. As the saying goes, [citation needed].
When you get down to it, we're just an organization of atoms into molecules into cells into tissues into people; our conscience is a by-product of chemical reactions and electrical impulses, probably with effects at the quantum level. There's no need for more than that to explain everything we are, and everything we feel, how we came to be, and there is no hidden meaning to life and the universe, not even the number 42.
Some people feel the need for more. They look at that and say "is that all there is?" This leaves them cold. Religion gives them a purpose. It's a crutch; some people need a crutch, and for them, fine. However, they have no right to ask the rest of us to accomodate their false reality. For too long, we've done so, in the name of "religious tolerance", and we've seen it subvert national and foreign policy. We've seen it divert tax dollars to foolishness, such as battles against letting gays and lesbians have the same rights as others wrt marriage, because people want to impose their own religious standards of behaviour on others. Funny how, time and time again, these same people can't even live up to those same standards. It just helps demonstrate that much religion is, at best, unnatural and perverse/perverted.
But back to your original argument: there is no proof that we aren't just a collection of atoms. If you wish to believe that, without proof, that's your choice. You can also believe that the moon is made of green cheese. Believing either of them, absent any proof or at least a hypothesis based on facts that can ultimately be put to some sort of test, isn't really a strong position to argue from.
Nintendo already does most of this. Combination game console, picture sharing, voice communication with anyone in the world, surf the net, buy stuff from their online store, everything organized in "channels", a natural interface that supports gestures, and (until the last update, which removed mp3 support) you could play your own music for some titles. So - Wii combined game/media/internet console FTW.
Apple isn't a game company.
That's exactly the problem ... it just makes it seem that the way things are is actually acceptable. Let the people who are foolish enough to run Windows pay. It's their problem, not mine.
Since Vista is a cpu and energy hog, and anti-virus software just adds to the burden, we could do a lot more for reducing our carbon footprint if the government would instead put the money into pushing alternatives that potentially benefit everyone. Or let the market sort it out for a change. Microsoft just laid off another 3,000, and is now having to GIVE Windows 7 away for a year, just to keep the flow of users to their crack pipe flowing.
No, advertising is not bailing out. Giving massive, long-term, unqualified, low-interest loans is a bail-out. Troll.
How is spending public money reinforcing the idea that a worm-infested operating system is acceptable NOT a bail-out? AND a cop-out?
It would be using public funds to help perpetuate validity in the publics' perception of the Microsoft monopoly. It would also validate the idea that anti-virus software is worth the extra cpu cycles, rather than switching to a platform that isn't as vulnerable, doesn't need to run AV software, and is therefore more energy-efficient.
Vista is NOT green technology. Adding an anti-virus on top just makes it worse.
Could I get a car analogy?
A8: "This is slashdot - just do "man car analogy" and RTFM, you ignorant clod!" :-)
A9: Here - let me fix it for you: "Can I get a pr0n analogy?"
A10: See link/a>.
HTH
Maybe I think Apple and Twitter are a perfect fit because they both use exciting new technologies that have captured the imaginations of cutting-edge tastemakers. Both have growing user bases; both are hip.
Twitter is no more hip than myspace or hotmail. And, unlike apple, where the majority of people who make the switch "once you go mac, you never go back", Twitter is losing more than half of new users each month.
Those who Twitter are usually quitters according to a company that measures internet traffic.
But research company Nielsen Online revealed that 60 per cent of users stop using the free website just a month after joining it.
'There simply aren't enough new users to make up for defecting ones after a certain point,' Nielsen's David Martin said.
Also, when you write:
I think you're being a little defensive
You have to relax, son, and stop thinking that everybody is making fun of you, and that any criticism of Apple is automatically some reference to your own perceived shortcomings.
I'm Apple-free. Always have been. I may buy one one day, but for now, linux does all I need.
Quite the contrary - what I'm saying is that, on further investigation, the bible turned out to be so much bullshit that it wasn't possible to defend it.
Have you even read it in its' entirety? (And I'm not saying "read 3 chapters a day and get through it in a year" - I mean - sit down and read it cover to cover in a week and see if, on the whole it makes sense).
No "head in the sand" approach here. I've still got my interlinear hebrew/english (OT) and greek/english (NT) texts, and no matter how you try to explain it away, it's still a fairy tale, not the truth.
There's a big difference between one guy knowing (or suspecting) the Earth is round and that being a general belief.
There's no evidence that everyone else thought the earth was flat. There IS evidence that people were taught, and knew, the earth was round. Aristotle didn't live in a vacuum, and it was the simplest explanation for ships passing out of view in the distance, with the mast being last. It was also the simplest explanation for why mountains also passed out of view, with their peaks being last. It wasn't that they were too far to see because of atmospheric haze (they could see more distant peaks that were higher), but because the earth was round.
Give it up already ... the "people thought the earth was flat right up to the middle ages" is just ignorance.
I'm not claiming the big bang theory states anything at all, I'm asking, how does it or any other scientific theory give you any proof, beyond reasonable doubt, that first there was nothing, and then there was something (i.e. creation)?
Like I said - do your research. The Big Bang theory does NOT say that "first there was nothing, and then there was something". Whoever told you that was talking out their arse. This is the sort of argument from ignorance that religious apologists make all the time, and it's a good indicator of the total paucity of proof on their side.
So, once again, why should ANYONE believe a superstition that has absolutely no evidence to back it up? Why should anyone believe a bible that commands genocide and slavery of ones' enemies, rape of their women, the killing of your own child to prove you're obedient to god (sounds like a cult to me), mysgoeny, bashing the GLBTs, slaughtering children en masse, a god who so lacks a sense of proportion or self-confidence that he gets bears to rip apart kids who made fun of someone's bald head (even kids understand "sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me"), punishes the innocent to "teach his people a lesson", etc?
That's just fucked up.
... and as for "devising tests", you're still assuming that human logic and testing is sufficient to understand a supreme being. If God exists (and I believe he does), then by definition he will be beyond our human understanding.
You don't have to understand something to be able to test for its' existence. People didn't understand how the sun gave off light and heat, but they could test as to whether the sun existed by simply looking. People didn't understand how fire worked to be able to harness it.
Also, you admit that your belief has zero proof. It's just a belief, with no evidence to back it up. Like I said, there's more proof that I am god (because it can be proven that I at least exist) than the god of the bible. That my position is beyond your understanding could be seen as more evidence :-)
It's worse -it's a disguised bail-out of Microsoft and anti-virus vendors.
It would help keep the idea alive that it's okay to sell virus-prone software. Why not use the same money to push for more development and higher adoption of linux or bsd?
Or create 2 internets - one for windows users, and one for people with a clue.
There are records of a rabble-rouser who was executed around that time who fits the description, and was executed. What's the problem with that? It doesn't prove that jesus was the son of god or any other crap, any more than Jim Jones and his cults' mass suicide proves that their beliefs were true, or the Solar Temple, or the Raliens, or whatever.
Or are you now going to argue that, because John Travolta and Tom Cruise exist, that scientology must be true?
Christianity is just the latest cultural abnormality in a long history. And no, I'm not from the US. A well-intentioned belief in the bible is ultimately not defensible - it eventually boils down to intellectual dishonesty, and that's a serious problem, at least from my point of view. When I have to make excuses, gloss over the bad stuff, etc., then it's time to say "this is a load of crap", whether it's the bible or work or anything else. The bible simply doesn't hold up under honest scrutiny. That its' purveyors don't either is only a secondary issue.
You know the saying - "You shall know the truth, and it shall set you free." Knowing that the god of the bible is not true is freedom indeed. I like it. Not because I'm now "free to do whatever I want", but because I no longer have to waste any time or energy trying to deal with the cognitive dissonance that results from having to believe something that is simply not credible.
Try it. You'll sleep better at night, you'll have a wider circle of friends, and you won't run the fisk of people thinking you're a self-righteous prig who wants to impose your moral standards on them.
You're asking for proof, beyond reasonable doubt, for the existence of God; Let's take a look at the big bang theory. Where did the first material, matter or whatever it's called, come from? How does the big bang theory explain the "there is absolutely nothing" to "now we have something" stage?
You misunderstand the big bang theory. It doesn't state what you claim it does. Please do at least a bit of research.
Also, I have not asked for "proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, for the existence of God" (the criminal standard of proof). I'm not even holding believers to the civil standard of proof - the "preponderance of the evidence." I've asked for ANY proof. None has been shown. Not one artifact, not one test, not one shred of evidence of the existence of any one of the thousands of gods that mankind has worshiped.
Saying "God does not exist because I can't find proof of his existance" is equivalent to sticking your head in the sand: "I can't see you, you don't exist."
Don't be silly. You can devise tests to prove or disprove my existence to the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. You haven't offered any proof of the existence of ANY god to ANY standard. Your case boils down to "I believe because I believe." Hardly compelling. There's more evidence that I am god than your biblical god - you can devise a test to see if I at least exist (even to the much higher standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt"), which gives me a leg up on your god, who you can't show, to even a subset of the "balance of the probabilities", exists.
Or you could admit that there is no proof whatsoever, and that "sin" is entirely in the eye of the beholder, and therefore, that believers have no inherent right to try to impose their morality on others, and that society has a right, for example, to pass laws allowing same-sex marriage.
After all, since you have no proof, the only difference between your religious beliefs and other superstitions is a tax deduction.
Non-disclosures are different from non-competes. If it's a trade secret, you just keep your mouth shut, period. And your next employer would WANT you to keep your mouth shut and not tell them any trade secrets - they can't afford the legal exposure and concomitant financial consequences
Ditto with customer lists, strategy, etc. Never disclose until it becomes public knowledge in another way. It's just not worth the hassle for everybody.
LETTING you work for the competition could very well be the most profitable decision they make...
However, if that was their plan, that you would work for the competition and purposefully divulge secrets so that the competition could be sued, it won't work, since they have voluntarily and intentionally leaked the "secrets."
Can you point me to your proof that the universe's physical laws are consistent everywhere in time and space?
Is it based on an evidence chain that starts with assuming uniformitarian principle as truth? No.
I have NEVER said that the universe's physical laws are the same everywhere in time and space. Why would I assume that - I haven't been everywhere in time and space - at least not yet. That doesn't mean shit in relation to whether there is a god or not. If they are ultimately proven to vary depending on location and time, so what? That's not any sort of "proof" that a "god" exists.
But that doesn't make you right. It doesn't give you the right to bully pulpit your ideas on me.
Aw, since you can't give ANY proof for the existence of your fairy-tale god, you now resort to whining. Look, it's very simple. If everything requires a creator, then who created god? You can follow the logical chain and end up with an infinitude of creators. Or you can look at the alternative - that the universe does NOT require that infinitude of creators, or any creator - it just is. It's better than the assumption of an ultimate creator who "just is", because at least we have physical evidence of the existence of the universe. There's none for the existence of any of the thousands of gods that we humans have dreamed up.
There is no god, jesus was a self-deluded freak who, considering all the crap we've undergone "in his name", got what he deserved in the end, and religion is just superstition with a tax deduction.
So now we're using nature as our moral compass? ... I guess that means I (if I were a father) could have sex with my 10 year old daughter, after all, the male cats in my back yard will try and mate with kittens, and they don't care that the kitten is one of their offspring. Oh, and I guess that means I can murder anybody walking onto my property; many animals in the wild are "protective" of their property, they kill just because they are being harassed (see some BBC documentaries about Lions for example) ... The simple answer to that is, two males having sex, sex without marriage etc., is wrong because God says it's wrong, not because you may or may not find proof out in the wild.
All the things you mention are actually shit that goes on in the bible - people raping their sisters, having sex with their daughters, being ordered by god to kill their own children, commit genocide and enslavement, forcing the wives of their enemies to be their own, etc. So, how is "god" any better than nature?
"God" doesn't say all that shit is wrong. If you believe the bible, he actually ORDERED most of it! So I'm underwhelmed by any argument that a "god" who you can't even offer one piece of evidence even exists, says in some fairy-tale book that contains a lot of conduct that is universally condemned nowadays, saying something is "wrong".
You have no proof that either god exists, or that the bible is in any way authoritative. Until you can do both, what consenting adults do in their bedrooms is their own business. As for the "sex without marriage" supposedly being wrong - look at the purported adam and eve's descendants (or noah's) - how could they NOT be the most incestuous bunch of inbred hillbillies?
The bible is neither holy nor particularly moral. There is no proof ANY god exists. Jesus was a self-deluded nutbar, one of many. Too bad, so sad, but there is no evidence to support your claims. You have no right imposing your "belief" that people should be married before they can have sex; neither that people of the same sex can't have sex; nor, for that matter, that people of the same sex can't get married, same as anyone else.
You don't see the people who decide to raise families w/o getting married going around saying YOU can't get married. You don't see the people who are involved in same-sex relationships saying YOU can't have sex with the opposite sex. You don't see people in same-sex marriages saying YOU can't marry someone of the opposite sex. Show the same respect for their rights that they show you. Stop being a busy-body, a gossip, and a hypocrite. Take the mote out of your eye.
As a former fundie, I can tell you that there IS life after Jebus and the Holy Rollers. And it's better. MUCH better. So much better that it's too bad jesus isn't coming back - I'd like to spit in his eye for helping propagate all this ignorance in the name of a fictitious god. I'll just have to settle for the fact that justice was ultimately served when they nailed him to the cross.
I responded in a failed effort to stop the Slashdot groupthink from asserting itself,
Show ANY proof that there is a god. ANY god. We've had thousands of them throughout history, so it's not like there isn't enough subject material. Otherwise, you're guilty of religious group-think with no basis whatsoever in fact. Get the mote out of your eye first, hmmm?
Come on, just ONE shred of hard, testable evidence that god - any god - exists. Or admit that what you believe is only that - a shared belief with no basis in fact. You know, group-think.
You claim:
Knowledge is only useful as it is applied, meaning that there is a great deal more to existence than knowledge; namely, experience
Information can exist without being useful. This is a retread of the worn-out "utilitarian argument for god" - that there must be more to life, and therefore god must exist. Why? Life doesn't have to have any intrinsic meaning. Does the life of an ant, or a swine flu particle, have any intrinsic meaning that "proves" the existence of an ant god, or a swine flu god? Or that they have the same god you have?
God is a cruel joke that we, as humans, have played on each other for a looong time. There's more to existance then blindly following an imaginary god - there's doing what I want to do, without other people trying to impose their superstitions, devoid of any proof, on me. Fortunately, atheism is the fastest-growing "belief" - hopefully, one day, religion will be held in the same contempt as smoking - something you don't do in polite company, that you admit is an irrational urge, and that you really need to give up for your own good, so you can focus your energy on other things.
Really, god is just a bad habit, and people should just "butt out." And if they can't, they should at least "butt out" of other people's lives, trying to impose their amoral religious beliefs in a phony god, sin, and condemnation, on others. Either that, or expect more push-back from those who see it as rude, superstitious, and phony.
So, got proof?