You're completely right, of course. I work for a computer retailer, and in talking to a few of the customers(when the sales prod's backs were turned) I have come to the conclusion that the majority of home users don't even know that there are alternatives to a Microsoft OS. Also,they have no interest when informed that,yes,others DO exist and *gasp* they're FREE, in getting another OS, as that involves something beyond the old Click and Drool of Windblows. It is clear that MS is not only taking advantage of the ignorance(coupled with a good bit of laziness) of consumers, but they are incouraging that ignorance...security through obscurity, auto-updaters for the their patches(that will probably introduce as many problems as they "fix") The message I am getting here is-
Merry Christmas,Script Kiddies!
Love,
Your buddy Bill
To be clear,it is not my assertion that there is no supreme being responsible for the creation of life. It is, however, my assertion that attacking science because one's religious texts seem to contradict any given theory is counter-productive. To cease looking for the how's and what's and simply be content with the answers given us in the Bible, or the Bhagavad Gita, Qu'ran or any other such religious writings does not encourage the growth of the human sphere of knowledge. I have no issues with anyone's religious beliefs, but I DO take issue with those who would constrain learning and growth because it does not jive with those beliefs. If anyone wishes to attack a hypothesis or theory, then do so,but do so by pointing out flaws in said theory/hypothesis, and supporting your arguments with facts,not by simply invoking the name of your deity and then dismissing the theory/hypothesis as apocryphal and therefore unworthy of any further pursuit.
It irks me that every time people learn something new about the nature of the universe, the beginnings of life, or the history of the Earth, someone has to say something like,"That's stupid. The answers are all in *insert name of holy book here*" This is a non-argument.
In answer to the question of whether or not it is impossible that life was created by God: nothing is impossible though it may be highly unlikely. In the case of God,I do not dismiss the possibility of one, because I can no more prove that such a being does not exist than anyone can prove that one does.
*sigh* I can't believe I chased a red herring this far.....
We know that polyols are present in the M and M meteorites, that they (by definition) came from space and we know that these sugars form an integral part of life as we know it. Is it so seemingly illogical to you to hypothesize that, since we cannot discern how these sugars came to be present here,they might have originated elsewhere? Your post is an a-typical appeal to ignorance coupled with a mis-application of Occam's razor(Do not multiply entities unnecesarily,or *newer application* the simplest answer is most often true.) Your argument seems to be,"Theory X is too complex for me to understand, and it is so easy to say 'God did it!Read Genesis.' that it MUST be the correct answer."
The fallacy in this is that your deity concept is far more complex than even the most complicated of theories. Where did this God come from?What is this God's nature? etc. etc. Theories can be tested,and are based on objectively verifiable evidence.Religion is not. It is based solely on the subjective testimonies of religious persons. If said testimonies were accepted as the be-all end-all of explanations, we would be in a sorry state indeed, and not sitting in front of out computers in our air-conditioned homes.If we simply threw up our hands and said,'God did it.I think I'll give up my job in astrophysics and go have a lie down.' then there would be a great deal we would have never learned.
Additionally,I would like to say that the assertions that theists make about what/when/where and why their respective deities did or did not do something is akin to blasphemy. I would think that an omniscient omnipowerful deity that was capable of concealing every shred of evidence of its very existance from the curious and driven minds of mankind collectively might be just a tad insulted when a mere human made claims of knowing anything it did.Just a thought.
Slashdot Mirror
You're completely right, of course. I work for a computer retailer, and in talking to a few of the customers(when the sales prod's backs were turned) I have come to the conclusion that the majority of home users don't even know that there are alternatives to a Microsoft OS. Also,they have no interest when informed that,yes,others DO exist and *gasp* they're FREE, in getting another OS, as that involves something beyond the old Click and Drool of Windblows. It is clear that MS is not only taking advantage of the ignorance(coupled with a good bit of laziness) of consumers, but they are incouraging that ignorance...security through obscurity, auto-updaters for the their patches(that will probably introduce as many problems as they "fix") The message I am getting here is-
Merry Christmas,Script Kiddies!
Love,
Your buddy Bill
To be clear,it is not my assertion that there is no supreme being responsible for the creation of life. It is, however, my assertion that attacking science because one's religious texts seem to contradict any given theory is counter-productive. To cease looking for the how's and what's and simply be content with the answers given us in the Bible, or the Bhagavad Gita, Qu'ran or any other such religious writings does not encourage the growth of the human sphere of knowledge. I have no issues with anyone's religious beliefs, but I DO take issue with those who would constrain learning and growth because it does not jive with those beliefs. If anyone wishes to attack a hypothesis or theory, then do so,but do so by pointing out flaws in said theory/hypothesis, and supporting your arguments with facts,not by simply invoking the name of your deity and then dismissing the theory/hypothesis as apocryphal and therefore unworthy of any further pursuit.
It irks me that every time people learn something new about the nature of the universe, the beginnings of life, or the history of the Earth, someone has to say something like,"That's stupid. The answers are all in *insert name of holy book here*" This is a non-argument.
In answer to the question of whether or not it is impossible that life was created by God: nothing is impossible though it may be highly unlikely. In the case of God,I do not dismiss the possibility of one, because I can no more prove that such a being does not exist than anyone can prove that one does.
*sigh* I can't believe I chased a red herring this far.....
We know that polyols are present in the M and M meteorites, that they (by definition) came from space and we know that these sugars form an integral part of life as we know it. Is it so seemingly illogical to you to hypothesize that, since we cannot discern how these sugars came to be present here,they might have originated elsewhere? Your post is an a-typical appeal to ignorance coupled with a mis-application of Occam's razor(Do not multiply entities unnecesarily,or *newer application* the simplest answer is most often true.) Your argument seems to be,"Theory X is too complex for me to understand, and it is so easy to say 'God did it!Read Genesis.' that it MUST be the correct answer."
The fallacy in this is that your deity concept is far more complex than even the most complicated of theories. Where did this God come from?What is this God's nature? etc. etc. Theories can be tested,and are based on objectively verifiable evidence.Religion is not. It is based solely on the subjective testimonies of religious persons. If said testimonies were accepted as the be-all end-all of explanations, we would be in a sorry state indeed, and not sitting in front of out computers in our air-conditioned homes.If we simply threw up our hands and said,'God did it.I think I'll give up my job in astrophysics and go have a lie down.' then there would be a great deal we would have never learned.
Additionally,I would like to say that the assertions that theists make about what/when/where and why their respective deities did or did not do something is akin to blasphemy. I would think that an omniscient omnipowerful deity that was capable of concealing every shred of evidence of its very existance from the curious and driven minds of mankind collectively might be just a tad insulted when a mere human made claims of knowing anything it did.Just a thought.